How important is the use of language and the characterization of events to how an event is perceived and tried in media and by the public?
While a terrorist act is inherently malevolent and an anonymous large-scale malevolent act terrorizes people and the public - if the Boston bombings were referred to as a malevolent act (until such time as the motive and perpetrators were identified) - would it change the current discourse?
Re: Act of terrorism versus malevolent act - semantics?
Unfortunately, in this day and age, post 9/11,the term “terrorism” automatically suggests Muslim/Islamic/Jihaadist/Middle Eastern involvement. I despise the “T” word now 
Re: Act of terrorism versus malevolent act - semantics?
Yes. Over the last decade “terrorism” and “acts of terror” have come to be associated with Islam and Muslim. The media is complicit in this association, as they keep bring ethnicity and religion into it, when FBI and Interpol statistics show that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the US and the EU are non-Muslim domestic attacks. Furthermore, the language you mentioned is not even used unless a Muslim is involved. I heard about reports of Middle Eastern men being tackled in the aftermath of the Boston explosions for “running away suspiciously”. You don’t say…a person was actually running *away *from an explosion? People mock China and Iran’s state media but mainstream American media is not much better. In fact, you could argue that it’s worse since it gives the average idiot the illusion of unbiased information.
Fox News reports basically went: we don’t know who did it yet but, Islam, Muslims, terrorists. Arab.
Re: Act of terrorism versus malevolent act - semantics?
i was wondering this too, first it was the dancing around the word bomb vs. explosions. bomb makes it sound huge and harmful, while explosions sounds almost detached and clinical to me.
terrorism vs. malevolent act - same thing maybe.. terrorism makes it sound like something severe, planned and executed. malevolent act makes it seem like something done more at the spur of the moment.
where are the lawyers of GS anyway?
Re: Act of terrorism versus malevolent act - semantics?
Amongst other things, the use of language affects insurance claims. Not all policies cover terrorism damage, though vandalisation or assault (malevolent acts) are covered.
For example, on 9/11 President Bush, in a speech, stated that the attacks were an act of war against the USA. The US insurance companies that insured the planes and buildings destroyed in the attacks were immediately relieved, because their insurance contracts covering the buildings and planes had clauses stating that acts of war were not covered.
6 days later, the US Congressional Finances Services Committee issued a statement saying that the President’s words were not an official statement on the government’s view.
====
12 years later, this is still having an impact. The leaseholder of the WTC site has an ongoing lawsuit against American Airlines for the damage caused when American Airline’s planes crashed into the WTC. American Airlines is stating that because President Bush said in a speech that it was an act of war, they have no legal liability for it.
12 years later, the semantics around what was said by the government on the nature of the attacks is still going through the legal system.
Re: Act of terrorism versus malevolent act - semantics?
When media uses word Terrorism it automatically brings out the feelings that American people had when 9/11 happened. Patriotism. This way they can detain an innocent person, bomb a random country and the average American Joe will be happy that the government is doing everything to keep them safe.
Re: Act of terrorism versus malevolent act - semantics?
Wow some smart responses. I am surprised. Yes the word terrorism is synonymous with Muslim/Islam as 9/11 drama had intended it to become. Historically, an act of terrorism is usually considered an act vs the state, while a malevolent act can be vs an individual or private entity. Thoughts go out to the families of the dead and injured.
Re: Act of terrorism versus malevolent act - semantics?
Ironically enough, the founding fathers of the US wrote about fear mongering being used as an excuse to erode civil rights.
Re: Act of terrorism versus malevolent act - semantics?
Skin color and demographics define the difference between terrorism and a single crazy person who needs psychological help.
Re: Act of terrorism versus malevolent act - semantics?
^ That is why they kept insisting that Breivik is mentally ill (despite him saying that he iss fully accountable for his deeds and that he would do it right again) so that people would be assured that he is not really evil, but a mental case. And that a ‘gora’ cannot be that evilminded that he will commit such a horrendous crime in consciousness.