Tuesday, July 12, 2005


Independent Sources has the good word: the ultraerroneous Los Angeles Times now stands ultracorrected.

The London Independent lets us know the BBC is promoting understanding:
The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.

Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".

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.
I've looked over the Beeb today, and they seem to totally avoid using "terrorist", but my understanding is barricaded by the value judgments implicit in words like "injured", "dead", "victims", and "outrage".

I'm left with the subconscious impression that what happened in London was a bad thing.
Is that what my understanding should be, Beeb?

What proper understanding would be clouded by the notion that the person who commits an act of "terror" (which is used) is a "terrorist"?

Seems to me that red-lining a word, appropriate in its definition but suspect in its connotation, is a bit "ultraconservative".

No comments: