5 ms·

I think sometimes it helps to biased when the MSM narrative is going to deliberately shy away from calling things out as they actually are. But still the facts

by hd4 10y ago

I think sometimes it helps to biased when the MSM narrative is going to deliberately shy away from calling things out as they actually are. But still the facts here speak for themselves. The guy shot 2 Indians specifically because he thought they were 'Middle-Eastern' (i.e. Muslim). It's terrorism and it's good the writer called it terrorism, since the BBC article seems to not use this term.

NLips 10y ago
I think the BBC use is very fair, so long as it is applied consistently. The guidelines for 'terrorist': Terrorist The word ‘terrorist’ is not banned, but its use can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as bomber, attacker, gunman, kidnapper, insurgent and militant. We should not adopt other people's language as our own. Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom. When we do use the term we should strive to do so with consistency in the stories we report across all our services, and in a way that does not undermine our reputation for objectivity and accuracy. It is also very important that we strive for consistency across the international and UK facing sites. If a BBC World story uses very measured language but a UK version does not, a user will rightly question the different approaches. The words ‘terror’ and ‘terrorist’ may be used in a non-specific context, or in direct quotes - but it is not for us to label a particular group or specific act as terrorist. Beware of paraphrasing and selective quotation, eg: “The Israeli prime minister said that while ‘terrorist’ attacks continued he would not back down.” Putting the single word ‘terrorist’ in quotes may give the impression that the BBC is sceptical about the prime minister’s assessment of the nature of the attacks. Domestically, we tread a similar line on Northern Ireland. The IRA is so well known, worldwide, that a label is not necessary. Groups such as the Real IRA and Continuity IRA can often be best labelled as dissident. A second reference to organisations such as the UFF and UVF could be along the lines of: The loyalist paramilitary organisation warned...

by hd4 10y ago

NLips 10y ago

I think the BBC use is very fair, so long as it is applied consistently. The guidelines for 'terrorist': Terrorist The word ‘terrorist’ is not banned, but its use can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as bomber, attacker, gunman, kidnapper, insurgent and militant. We should not adopt other people's language as our own. Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom. When we do use the term we should strive to do so with consistency in the stories we report across all our services, and in a way that does not undermine our reputation for objectivity and accuracy. It is also very important that we strive for consistency across the international and UK facing sites. If a BBC World story uses very measured language but a UK version does not, a user will rightly question the different approaches. The words ‘terror’ and ‘terrorist’ may be used in a non-specific context, or in direct quotes - but it is not for us to label a particular group or specific act as terrorist. Beware of paraphrasing and selective quotation, eg: “The Israeli prime minister said that while ‘terrorist’ attacks continued he would not back down.” Putting the single word ‘terrorist’ in quotes may give the impression that the BBC is sceptical about the prime minister’s assessment of the nature of the attacks. Domestically, we tread a similar line on Northern Ireland. The IRA is so well known, worldwide, that a label is not necessary. Groups such as the Real IRA and Continuity IRA can often be best labelled as dissident. A second reference to organisations such as the UFF and UVF could be along the lines of: The loyalist paramilitary organisation warned...