http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html

BBC edits out the word terrorist
By Tom Leonard
(Filed: 12/07/2005)

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.

Rod Liddle, a former editor of the Today programme, has accused the BBC of "institutionalised political correctness" in its coverage of British Muslims.

A BBC spokesman said last night: "The word terrorist is not banned from the BBC."

Interesting. I'll have to digest that a little more before commenting.

Same here--that's why I posted it now instead of waiting for tomorrow.

they should replace "terrorists" w/ the word "cunts"

Interesting observation while watching coverage:

Watching the CBC coverage, up here, it is referred to as the "London Bombings" w/ accompanying text at the bottom of the screen.

Watching CNN coverage, it is referred to as "London Terror" or "Terror in London" or something along those lines, w/ accompanying text.

Hmm...

I deleted my response. I don't have the energy to defend it.

I think this is a good thing. While it may be the opposite extreme of things, I prefer my news to be delivered with intelligence and as little bias as possible. I believe this is terrorism, but I don't need CNN, MSNBC, and Fox telling me about the horrible terror and trying to drum up fear in order to draw viewers.

Understandable, but shouldn't it be referenced as what it is? Whether it was Jews, Hispanics, Lybians or Australians, it was terrorism. To reference it as something else is the Pat Robertson opposite of being PC. It is just as dumb, and shoudl be called out.

I agree this is taking things to an extreme. It is terrorism and should be labeled as such. However, I'd rather have a media outlet take this route than to resort to scare tactics to get attention. Intelligent people will realize what is or isn't terrorism.

OK, I think we agree on the idea of the thing, but I do think that mitigating the actions of those that attacked London is equally as abrasive as using the attacks as a fear tactic. I just say, report the story. There is no wrong or right about telling the truth. Terrorists attacked London, I doubt there is a better word for it. Just because the right has a Rush Limbaugh, that should not justify a Michael Moore. The truth of the matter should be the truth. If I am the bad guy, and you are my polar opposite, then nothing is accomplished. We need someone there to tell us the straight story, and if they fail to we need to call them out.

I agree it was a bombing. They were bombers. Terrorism is a speculative and emotive word - bomber is far more objective and correct.

They were silly little misguided boys.

Should be met with disgust and condemnation not fear or terror.

London does not seem like a terrorised city. It is a resilient city determined to dictate it's own agenda.

Didn't we learn this in the 1940s? If the gerries can't take em down, no one can.

I don't think bomber is correct though. We are looking at people who murdered innocent people to represent a political message and strike fear into those that they bombed. Yes if you want to use bomber in its most general sense then it is accurate, but you could also use ass kicker or limb shredder. The most accurate term for what they did is terrorist. They didn't just bomb something, they had a motive, they attacked random innocent people, and they did it in order to strike fear into the populous. Should this shit really be argued? It is not obvious what they were and what they were doing?

I understand what you are saying. I just think that calling them terrorists just aids their cause - it projects added meaning onto the act. It is a dramatic and emotive word. Journalism should be objective and descriptive not emotive. Emotive words can fuel irrational responses, where journalism should give context and perspective.

I just think by calling it terrorism, and them terrorists, it automatically raises what is a cowardly and crude but localised act, into something that is seems more threatening, more powerful and impacts the conciousness of millions of people.

I agree that the act was designed to disrupt and terrorise but by calling it terrorism - automatically assumes that response. I just think that calling it a bombing is more objective and less assuming.

With no apparent motive, they're not terrorists. Yet.

I think you hit it right on the nail here--thus I will agree with the BBC's decision. "Terrorism/t" does seem to imply a bit of commentary.

On a related note, remember that the media here calls those who are fighting against the US and Iraqi troops in Iraq "insurgents" and not "terrorists".

Looks like they are changing their minds are calling them what they are: terrorists.

Of not "Islamic Terrorists", but it's a good start.

I think you should call them what you know they are. Bombs explode ... you call the perpetrators bombers until you know they had a political cause. Then you call them terrorists.

Once you've already called them terrorists, it's stupid to try to go back to bomber. Besides, by the time the BBC started using "bombers," the al queda website had claimed responsibility so "terrorist" was a more accurate word.

What were the IRA bombers/terrorists called on the BBC?

Maybe someone had an idea ahead of time that they were English Nationals????

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07 ... index.html