PMWATCH - March 25, 2002 -- Dan Fisher, MSNBC Ombudsman, recently wrote a couple of
pieces on the use and abuse of the terms "terror" and "terrorism".  This kind of open
soul searching is quite refreshing, but the equivocations still remain, in spite of
what seems to be an honest attempt to come to a morally and journalistically
acceptable policy on the use of these sensitive terms.  Here is telling passage:

   I really dislike the euphemism “collateral damage,” but in 
   fact there are almost bound to be civilian casualties in such a conflict. The 
   moral question, it seems to me, is not whether the opposing military force is 
   guilty of “terrorism” in such a situation, but whether it takes adequate 
   precautions to avoid noncombatant casualties. And that, clearly, is a very 
   tough thing for news reporters to judge. 

Massive evidence that Israeli soldiers have been taunting and shooting children at
will simply does not come into the picture.  Perhaps we should ask Mr. Fisher if
he considers the deliberate killing of Palestinian children by IDF soldiers "terrorism"
or just careless maneuvering.  Perhaps he should give us a comment on the following 
from New York Time journalist Chris Hedges:

   And it was--I mean, I've seen kids shot in Sarajevo. I mean, snipers would shoot 
   kids in Sarajevo. I've seen death squads kill families in Algeria or El Salvador. 
   But I'd never seen soldiers bait or taunt kids like this and then shoot them for 
   sport. It was--I just--even now, I find it almost inconceivable. And I went back 
   every day, and every day it was the same.
   -- New York Times reporter Chris Hedges, Fresh Air, NPR, October 30, 2001


Please share your thoughts with the Ombudsman by filling your contact information and
clicking send.  Your letter will be sent to: Dan Fisher at: ombudsman@msnbc.com


Palestine Media Watch
http://www.pmwatch.org

How to define a terrorist     
Coming to grips with an explosive term  
http://www.msnbc.com/news/721338.asp

Pejorative or descriptive?     
Blanket rules on using ‘terrorist’ don’t cover every case  
http://www.msnbc.com/news/726980.asp

By Dan Fisher
MSNBC  

       March 20 —  I wrote about the use — or non-use — of the terms 
“terrorist” and “terrorism” in news stories about the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict on March 11. But I need to return to the subject for two reasons: 
To correct a statement I made about MSNBC.com’s policy regarding the terms 
and also to elaborate on the question raised by several readers about whether 
Israeli army killings of civilians qualify as “terrorism.”

  
        FIRST, ON MSNBC.com’s policy: I wrote in that earlier column 
that the site has no specific rules of its own about use of the terms, 
“though in practice, they appear relatively rarely in news stories 
concerning Israel and the Palestinians, except in direct or indirect 
quotations. Palestinians who attack Israelis have generally been referred 
to as ‘militants,’ ‘extremists,’ ‘gunmen,’ and ‘assailants;’ a story 
the other day about a bomb exploding at a Palestinian school referred 
to the suspected perpetrators as ‘Jewish extremists.’ ”

       I’ve learned since that my characterization of MSNBC.com’s 
policy was based on a misunderstanding. While the site has no general 
rule about the use or non-use of the terms, reporters and producers have 
been instructed not to use it in news reports on the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict except in direct quotations. The reason, I was told by Executive 
News Producer Robert Aglow, is that “we have been so hammered on fairness 
that we have steered away from using the term.” Senior Editor Andrea 
Hamilton, among whose duties are to update and enforce the site’s “style” 
rules, added that the terms are avoided in a Mideast context because “the 
conflict there is so complicated and goes back so far,” with each side 
accusing the other of “terrorism.” 
       
         To repeat, I disagree with blanket rules that disallow the use 
of the terms in any context. I don’t think it’s a violation of journalistic 
impartiality to describe certain acts targeting civilian non-combatants 
as “terrorism.” As I wrote in last week’s column: “Suicide bombings at 
night clubs, pizza parlors, or wedding celebrations are ‘terrorist’ attacks 
in my book. So is the ambush of a civilian bus, nationalist-inspired 
kidnapping and murder, or the placement of a bomb in a schoolyard. I 
think it’s inherently inconsistent to refer, as an MSNBC.com Mideast 
story did on March 7, to ‘militants killing civilians.’ 

       “Conversely, I didn’t in the late-80’s and wouldn’t now refer to 
Palestinian attacks on soldiers as ‘terrorism.’ That’s not to argue it’s 
justified — just that to qualify as ‘terrorism’ it seems to me the victims 
of violence must be civilian noncombatants.”

       For the moment, MSNBC.com’s senior producers and I are clearly in 
disagreement on this issue. And apologies for my part in the misunderstanding 
that led to the error.
       
WHO’S A TERRORIST?  
  
        I wrote in last week’s column that to qualify as “terrorism,” it 
seems to me the victims of violence must be civilian noncombatants. Several 
readers, noting that many Palestinian victims of Israeli army actions fit 
that description, questioned why those shouldn’t be described as “terrorism.” 

       I suppose at some level it’s true that all combatants are trying to 
“terrorize” the other side in hopes of so demoralizing it that it will give 
up the fight. But that ignores the nature of the conflict. 

       What’s been going on in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza most resembles 
an insurrection, or a guerrilla war. The U.S. Army has long referred to this 
type of conflict as “unconventional warfare,” reader Robert J. Lavin, U.S. Army 
(Ret), wrote. “So organized terrorism, guerrilla warfare, unconventional war — 
it’s all the same class of combat, and it can only be defeated by similar forms 
of unconventional warfare,” he added.   
   
       In this type of war, where guerrilla combatants mix with the civilian 
population, there are clearly challenges for the other side. Lavin cited Vietnam 
as another example. I really dislike the euphemism “collateral damage,” but in 
fact there are almost bound to be civilian casualties in such a conflict. The 
moral question, it seems to me, is not whether the opposing military force is 
guilty of “terrorism” in such a situation, but whether it takes adequate 
precautions to avoid noncombatant casualties. And that, clearly, is a very 
tough thing for news reporters to judge. 

       As I responded to Ramses Wassef, one of the readers who raised this 
issue: “I think it’s important journalistically to report on the conditions 
of such an incident, making clear as much as possible the civilian vs. combatant 
casualty picture, and also any pertinent information available regarding the 
behavior of the soldiers. With that, readers can judge for themselves whether 
there was reckless (or even malicious) disregard of civilian lives.” 

Dan Fisher is the MSNBC.com ombudsman, an independent critic of the journalism 
that appears on this site. Contact him at ombudsman@msnbc.com