- (New York Times) Daniel Okrent * Nothing provokes as much rage as what many perceive to be The Times' policy on the use of "terrorist," "terrorism," and "terror." * There is no policy, actually. According to Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner: "We use 'terrorist' sparingly because it is a loaded word. Describing the goals or acts of a group often serves readers better than repeating the term 'terrorist.'" * The Times' earnest effort to avoid bias can desiccate language and dilute meaning. In a January memo to the foreign desk, former Jerusalem bureau chief James Bennet addressed the paper's gingerly use of the word "terrorism." * "The calculated bombing of students in a university cafeteria, or of families gathered in an ice cream parlor, cries out to be called what it is," he wrote. * "I wanted to avoid the political meaning that comes with 'terrorism,' but I couldn't pretend that the word had no usage at all in plain English." * Bennet came to believe that "not to use the term began to seem like a political act in itself." I agree. My own definition is simple: an act of political violence committed against purely civilian targets is terrorism; attacks on military targets are not.
2005-03-08 00:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive