First, a quick definition of the word 'terrorism' from dictionary.com:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Under this definition, one could make a very strong argument that the Bush administration is a terrorist group, as Keith Olberman did this week on his show on MSNBC. Specifically, Olberman said, "the leading terrorist group in this country right now is the Republican Party." If you want to take a look at the video or read the transcript, you can click here.
So what should journalists do when using the word 'terrorist'? It seems to me that just by calling one group 'terrorists' or a 'terrorist organization' that you are showing bias, even if it is standard practice. But no one will ever describe the Bush administration or the Republican party as a 'terrorist group' in a newspaper story that isn't an editorial.
Perhaps the better solution should be to eliminate the word entirely. In the end, what does it add? Shouldn't the reader be able to decipher which groups or people are terrorists without using such a loaded and biased word? For example, look at how Wikipedia describes al Qaida:
Al-Qaeda or al-Qaida is an armed Sunni Islamist organization with the stated objective of eliminating foreign influence in Muslim countries, and reestablishing the califate.
Certainly we can all use better ways to describe terrorists or terrorist groups without using the word 'terrorist' to describe one group and not the other. By eliminating the word, we can help to avoid the "us vs. them" mentality seen in so many stories.
Tracy Bratten @ October 25, 2006 - 4:18pm
It is becoming increasingly important for journalists to be sensitive to the evolution of the language that refers to perpetual conflicts. I do not, however, think that we should begin eliminating words merely because they can be deemed controversial. It may be important, however, to consistently remind ourselves and our audience of our definitions of certain words, even if it means stating them explicitly. We discussed possible media biases in class at length, referring to "liberal" or "conservative" slants. However, the definitions of these words, too, have become problematic, as the ideologies they represent continue to change. The word "terrorist" has certainly become a loaded one in recent years, and has infiltrated political discourse in the wake of 9/11. I think we should be sensitive to the connotations of the words we choose, but I don't think we should strike them from our vocabulary entirely.
»