Page 1 of 1

CBC: Don't Judge the Terrorists!!

Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:24 pm
by DrDetroit
The CBC joins the BBC and Reuters in their crusade to erase the stigma from acts of terrorism:
What follows is a memo distributed to CBC staff describing the CBC policy on use of the word 'terrorism.'

'Terrorist' and 'terrorism': Exercise extreme caution before using either word.

Avoid labelling any specific bombing or other assault as a "terrorist act" unless it's attributed (in a TV or Radio clip, or in a direct quote on the Web). For instance, we should refer to the deadly blast at that nightclub in Bali in October 2002 as an "attack," not as a "terrorist attack." The same applies to the Madrid train attacks in March 2004, the London bombings in July 2005 and the attacks against the United States in 2001, which the CBC prefers to call "the Sept. 11 attacks" or some similar expression. (The BBC, Reuters and many others follow similar policies.)

Terrorism generally implies attacks against unarmed civilians for political, religious or some other ideological reason. But it's a highly controversial term that can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict.
Controversial? To whom? The terrorists?
By restricting ourselves to neutral language, we aren't faced with the problem of calling one incident a "terrorist act" (e.g., the destruction of the World Trade Center) while classifying another as, say, a mere "bombing" (e.g., the destruction of a crowded shopping mall in the Middle East).
That's all well and good, except that terrorism is a handily defined English word. If the crowded shopping mall in the Middle East was destroyed by a person or an organized group (i.e. not a government actor) with the intention of intimidating or coercing a society or government for ideological or political reasons, than it meets the definition of terrorism.

They do speak English in some parts of Canada, right?
Use specific descriptions. Instead of reaching for a label ("terrorist" or "terrorism") when news breaks, try describing what happened.

For example, "A suicide bomber blew up a bus full of unarmed civilians early Monday, killing at least two dozen people." The details of these tragedies give our audience the information they need to form their own conclusions about what type of attack it was.

Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:32 pm
by Hapday
The CBC is an extremely left-wing government owned and run media outlet. This soft stance on terrorism comes as no surprise to anyone up here. A majority of our media oulet are exteremly left wing. It sucks.

Re: CBC: Don't Judge the Terrorists!!

Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:48 pm
by BSmack
DrDetroit wrote:That's all well and good, except that terrorism is a handily defined English word. If the crowded shopping mall in the Middle East was destroyed by a person or an organized group (i.e. not a government actor) with the intention of intimidating or coercing a society or government for ideological or political reasons, than it meets the definition of terrorism.
Very neat how you exclude governmental entities from the definition of terrorisim.

Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:49 pm
by Broken Record Trollâ„¢
<---------------



DrDetroit wrote:
fukkin media cowards

Re: CBC: Don't Judge the Terrorists!!

Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:55 pm
by DrDetroit
BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:That's all well and good, except that terrorism is a handily defined English word. If the crowded shopping mall in the Middle East was destroyed by a person or an organized group (i.e. not a government actor) with the intention of intimidating or coercing a society or government for ideological or political reasons, than it meets the definition of terrorism.
Very neat how you exclude governmental entities from the definition of terrorisim.
So what? Does it change the fact that the CBC, BBC, and Reuters are doing their best not to offend terrorists sensibilities?? Of course, not.

Then again, and I am speculating here, I'm sure that you'd include the US as a terrorist organization???

Re: CBC: Don't Judge the Terrorists!!

Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:59 pm
by Here He Goes Again
DrDetroit wrote:
The liberal media, I'm wetting my pants!
The liberal media, I'm wetting my pants!
The liberal media, I'm wetting my pants!
The liberal media, I'm wetting my pants!
The liberal media, I'm wetting my pants!

[/quote]

Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:15 pm
by tough love
Good One, Dr D.

If I were to shout in public, 'Gay's should be killed, kill the Indians, it's justified to kill the abortion doctors, all politicians should die' etc - whatever, I would be hauled off and charged with a hate crime faster than Otis could pucker up for Martin.

Yet; in Canada and other countries with simular hate/insite laws, hate mongering freaks are allowed to scream their hate fill crap about killing innocent folks in the name of islam through freakin mega-phones in crowded public areas, while being Muslim excludes them from prosecution.

Wtf is with that???

Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:31 pm
by Hapday
Thank God we can finally get FOX news up here. It's a breath of fresh air.