This is why the BBC is the finest large scale news corporation in the world.
**“We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them.”
“We should not adopt other people’s language as our own… 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’, ‘attacking’, ‘gunman’, ‘kidnapper’ ‘insurgent’ and ‘militant’.”
The new guidance suggested using words such as “bomb attack” instead, or “bomber” or “assassin”.**
-
Being government funded, it is free from the burden of having to report news in a profitable way, ie using language that emotionally appeals to its audience rather than language that is neutral and accurate. Would CNN or Fox news, which must draw ratings to draw adverts to stay funded, ever drop the word “terrorist”?
-
Despite being government funded, it stays independent of the government. Indeed, these guidelines means journalists use avoid using the British government’s own view of such attacks. The government might call it terrorism, but the BBC will simply report an attack and let the viewers decide for themselves if it’s terrorism instead of feeding them the words.
-
State media ownership with full journalistic freedom is the only way to report truth. Private media is permanently handicapped by being forced to report what is profitable… not neccessarily the truth.
The BBC has issued new guidance to staff telling them to take care when using the term “terrorist”, and to opt instead for less loaded terms.
Following criticism from some quarters about the corporation’s coverage of the July 7 London bombings, the BBC’s governors have approved fresh guidance on “the use of language when reporting terrorism”.
The new guidance has been sent out internally and tells journalists: “The guidelines do not ban the use of the word. However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the perpetrators. And there are a number of important editorial factors that must be considered before its use to describe individuals or a given group that can be justified.”
The BBC said the rise of digital media meant there was no longer a split between domestic and overseas audiences, making careful use of such terms even more important.
“Careful use of the word ‘terrorist’ is essential if the BBC is to maintain its reputation for standards of accuracy and especially impartiality … that does not mean we should emasculate our reporting or otherwise avoid conveying the reality and horror of what has occurred; but we should consider the impact our use of language may have on our reputation for objective journalism amongst our many audiences … we must be careful not to give the impression that we have come to some kind of implicit - and unwarranted - value judgement.”
The edict reminds BBC staff of the existing BBC editorial policy, which states: “The word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them.”
“We should not adopt other people’s language as our own. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like ‘liberate’, ‘court martial’ or ‘execute’ in the absence of a clear judicial process. 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’, ‘attacking’, ‘gunman’, ‘kidnapper’ ‘insurgent’ and ‘militant’.”
The new guidance suggested using words such as “bomb attack” instead, or “bomber” or “assassin”.
It concluded: “This is an issue of judgement … If you do decide to use the word ‘terrorist’ do so sparingly, having considered what is said above, and take advice from senior editors.”
After the London bombings, the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, dismissed claims that the BBC banned the use of the word “terrorist” in its news coverage.
He told a House of Lords committee hearing on BBC charter renewal, that neither he nor the BBC news director, Helen Boaden, had issued a memo to that effect to journalists on July 7.
But he added that programme editors may have been reminded about the BBC’s guidelines on the use of language during such events.
The issue was discussed at the BBC governors’ meeting in July, and in September the governors heard that a review of the implementation of the editorial guidelines with regard to the use of the terms “terrorism” and “terrorists” had begun.
