BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

The PC editor

5 comments on The PC editor

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.

5 responses to “The PC editor”

  1. Steven I. Weiss Avatar
    Steven I. Weiss

    The thing is, lots of credible news organizations on the right also refuse to label Hamas a “terrorist organization.” See this conversation I had with Paul Steiger at the NYMag conference, and this earlier post on both the WSJ and Fox News.
    Obviously, Steiger’s making a disctinction that has a helluva lot more credibility than Pynn’s, but the distinction stands, nonetheless.

  2. KMK Avatar
    KMK

    Instead of massaging the definition of terrorist why not remove the word “conflict” and call it “the Middle East War” it’s a better fit if we are going to continue calling terrorists militants.

  3. chitrader Avatar
    chitrader

    It’s gotten to the point that the PC police have removed context from the issue in order to avoid using “terrorist.” The spokesman for some Arab-American group implicitly did so by comparing suicide bombers to when Israeli soldiers attack terrorists and “kill innocent BYSTANDERS.” The fact that he used the term “bystanders” himself highlights the difference!
    The intent of the terrorists is to attack civilians, to instill fear in the Israeli populace. The intent of the Israelis is to attack the terrorists, to punish those who inflict harm, and the use of missiles and careful intelligence by the IDF is their attempt to limit civilian casualties, albeit often unsuccessful. That distinction is the context for “terrorist” as opposed to “militant.” If Hamas were blowing up bridges, or just attacking IDF outposts, then I could see using the more military-like term. But let’s be honest here and call it like it is.

  4. Buster Avatar
    Buster

    I’m wondering when, in the name of PC, all these factions will become “the persons with whom we have serious disagreements.”

  5. R C Dean Avatar
    R C Dean

    What these PC-addled nitwits don’t realize is that all the terms they bandy about instead of terrorist also have judgmental connotations, and that sometimes it is impossible to be accurate without being judgmental. By being “neutral” they are, in fact, making a judgment that these people are not criminals, are not terrorists, and are apparently pursuing legitimate grievance by legitimate means. If that is not what they mean to communicate, then they shouldn’t strive for “neutral” terms that do in fact communicate precisely that message.