The PC editor
: Watch the Orlando Sentinal’s “public editor,” Manning Pynn, twist his knickers in knots trying to justify not calling Hamas a “terrorist” organization.
In April, the committee adopted this standard: “Use caution when using these terms [militants, terrorists], which can show bias toward one side in a conflict. Generally, ‘bombers,”attackers’ or ‘suicide bombers’ are preferred terms.”
The term “terrorist” certainly expresses judgment: It imputes to the person or organization being described the motive of trying to instill fear. “Militant” seems to me much more neutral. And that may be why the Sentinel, despite its style committee’s decision, continues to use that term to describe Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Most of the news organizations I surveyed do the same.
I’m afraid that the horse is out of the barn on the labeling of al-Qaeda. Although journalists strive to avoid expressing bias in reporting the news, the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, so shocked Americans — including the news media — that they almost universally applied the term “terrorism” to what had happened. I don’t think the Sentinel will retreat from that.
Does that mean, though, that we should extend that judgment to all attacks on civilians? …
Oh, man, if you can’t tell a terrorist until he bombs your town, then you have a problem with language and logic. You’re “afraid” that horse is out of the barn? Oh, that horse got blasted out of the barn long since.
See the post below on how PCthink is making a lie of news and art. This guy proves the point.