We 'understand' alright

Tom Gross rightly lays into the BBC for refusing to use the word 'terrorist' during its reporting of various attacks upon innocent people.

The reason why the BBC refuses to use the word is that it can, apparently, be a ”barrier to understanding. It is the duty of the BBC to ”try to avoid the term, while we report the facts as we know them.".

It’s an interesting policy. Interesting because it effectively states that the blanket BBC policy is that, you know, the terrorists might have a point and that it could potentially do their cause harm if the word terrorist or terrorism is used. That surely is the context that their guideline phrase ”barrier to understanding" must be taken in.

But the policy is flawed.

Flawed because the meaning of the words are clearly defined and flawed because it is inaccurate of the BBC to substitute less descriptive words:

Terrorist: - One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

Terrorism - 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.

There is nothing in those definitions that prevents any kind of ‘understanding’. They are crystal clear and they are accurately descriptive.

The BBC’s policy is flawed because it refuses to recognise that there is an end game to the process of ‘understanding’. It is not perpetual and cannot, therefore, be comfortably or accurately used within a policy statement. Flawed because ‘understanding’ has been achieved and, indeed, was achieved some time ago. We ‘understand’ what the terrorists are. We ‘understand’ that they think that the deliberate and cold blooded killing of innocent civilians will coerce our society and our government. We ‘understand’ that they revel in the blood and fire. We ‘understand’ everything we need to thank you very much.

The BBC policy is also flawed because it does not extend to other words and phrases that have a clear and accurate definition but that might be a barrier to ‘understanding’. Words and phrases like criminal, blood sport, fat cat, intimidation and any number of others that no one else on the planet has a problem with, including the BBC.

So why pick on terrorist? Again, it’s because, you know, they might have a point.

It is utterly reprehensible and made more so because we are forced to pay for the service that must abide by such a policy. Sickening. Pathetic.

Posted by John at July 12, 2005 10:56 AM | TrackBack