Terrorists and the BBC: What's in a Name?

It turns out that the BBC has joined the New York Times in its sensitivity and understanding towards terrorists.

If I wrote for the BBC, the above sentence would have been slashed...for many reasons, I'm sure. However, what might surprise you is that what violates current BBC standards is the word "terrorist."

According to the Telegraph, "The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the 'careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments.' Consequently, 'the word terrorist itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding' and its use should be avoided, the guidelines say."
What an absolute joke! We're debating the way prisoners are being treated at Guantanamo Bay and now what we call people who consider it a duty and honor to kill innocent civilians? My guess is that they, the terrorists (or, whatever you choose to call them) are entertained by our tolerance. Because the silliness of political correctness keeps us focused on our disagreements, not on them. It fosters infighting, not unity and strength against a very real and evil enemy. (Hmmm...I wonder if calling the vicious murderers "evil" is acceptable.)

Here's my little bit of advice to the New York Times and the BBC. Before you come up with your terrorist-sensitive policies and reports, take a moment to replay a video on a nearby television or simply a memory in your mind. Take your pick: 9/11 or 7/7. Consider the damage, consider the victims and consider the families. Then, begin writing.


At 7/12/2005 01:11:00 PM, Anonymous Clayton Bell said...

Welcome to the world of attacker's rights. What about the victim you ask? Who cares about them, their dead! Why would we trample of the terrible reputation of those who are alive and killing people just so that we can protect the rights of some dead people? How can that make sense?

Oh gosh, the prisoner thing. See, the military took the wrong way with this Koran thing, trying to apologize for it and say it never happened. Don't they realize that if they wanted to desecrate the Koran and make fun of Islam all they had to do was call it "art"? If they called it art, they could have put the Koran in a vat of urine and it would have been fine, because you can do that with a cross and it's art, so why not a Koran? C'mon, military, get it in gear?

(For those of you know don't know me, I apologize that sarcasm is not always perfectly conveyed over the internet, but that was sarcastic. I don't think we should treat the Koran with malicious intent, and we should have a higher ethic than our enemies, but, and please catch this...WE ARE AT WAR! This isn't a club! This is a war! I'm surprised that the people who are going nuts over this don't remember that the bible is routinely ripped apart in Arabia and burned and thrown away in China. If Christians reacted the same way Moslems overseas are every time the bible or Christ was publicly or privately maligned, the entire world would look like London after the blitzkrieg in World War II. Oops, sorry about that London. No hard feelings?

At 7/12/2005 01:24:00 PM, Blogger Layman said...

I noticed that shortly after the attacks, when I visisted the CNN International website, it said something like, "Bombers Hit London." When you went to CNN's U.S. site, it said, "Terrorists Hit London."

So CNN feels comfrotable using the "terrorist" label for their U.S. audience, but not their British one.

At 7/13/2005 07:06:00 AM, Blogger Ryan M Scott said...

I think if we saw footage of people jumping out of the towers once in a while we might remember what happened that day and never forget who we are fighting.

At 7/14/2005 12:58:00 AM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

It's true. I thought we'd never be able to forget the pain and destruction of 9/11. I'm so sad to say that I was wrong.

At 5/31/2011 09:50:00 PM, Anonymous Casino Cheaters said...

Logical question


Post a Comment

<< Home