The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 'T' is for 'freedom fighter' at the ABC > Comments

'T' is for 'freedom fighter' at the ABC : Comments

By Fran Feldman, published 29/6/2005

Fran Feldman argues the new 'ABC Style Guide' raises some serious concerns regarding advice to journalists.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
1. "To say that a terrorist might be a freedom fighter is political - pure ideology, not a statement about good writing style."

No, in the general sense it's a fact, you can be fighting for freedom while using terrorist tactics. For specific references, it wouldn't be the ABC doing it, it would be the groups & their supporters. The ABC doesn't want to use language that assumes a politcal position - that's the whole *point*; each side will use terms that portray the other in a negative light. Terrorism, despite being a factual designation has a negative connotation and also has a wide scope. A group that blows up a checkpoint or legitimate military targets could still be called a terrorist group; even the war in Iraq could be considered large scale terrorism.

2. If this article is an indicator, then the group supporting Israel's actions is being oversensitive. How pervasive are Palestinian labels? The word isn't meaningless, but the issue is controversial.
3. Maybe it's there because it's easily forgotten.
4. It's implied. (It's a guideline not a news report.)
5. Then it wouldn't be a problem. (And we have no idea what ellipses or anything else she might have said, not that it matters.)
6. I suppose you can take that up with those calling themselves freedom fighters. And it is rather silly to think that people are happy to kill other people, or themselves without any (real or perceived) grievances.
7. It says not to use "labels that may seem too extreme or too soft, depending on your point of view". Naturally those that see certain labels these ways and have a personal connection to the conflict could be offended. If a term isn't the best word, why should it be used? But the greater problem is the risk of enshrining a politcal view into language or defining facts into existence.

"[S]o should a journalist take care in labelling someone a 'terrorist'."
But it doesn't always happen, people are biased, and they will thoughtlessly adopt the terms of those they agree with.
Posted by Deuc, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 11:47:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would surprise no one to discover that the ABC is on the side of the Terrorists. The lure of Terrorism is the need to be part of something bigger than oneself and something more violent. It is not the houris. They are the excuse. The lure is the thrill of violence. Football Hooligans do not do it for houris. Keith
Posted by kthrex, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 3:31:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ABC writes:

'Remember, one person’s “terrorist” is usually someone else’s “freedom fighter”.'

Fran Feldman appears to misunderstand this comment:

'There maybe some good stylistic reasons to use an alternative to the "T" word, but the “freedom fighter” reason is not one of them.'

That sentence in the style guide doesn't suggest or instruct that 'freedom fighter' be used as an alternative to 'terrorist'. Rather, it demonstrates that labels can easily carry political or ideological implications. This context is implied by the following sentence:

'“Terrorism”, “terrorist”, “militant”, “gunman”, etc. are all labels.'

This document isn't prescribing the use of labels like "freedom fighter" - it's proscribing the use of labels associated with particular points of view. Thus Feldman's points 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 proceed directly from a poor reading of the style guide.
Posted by Flashman, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 4:44:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The word terrorist has a dictionary definition. The Australian Government has designated certain organisations as terrorist. Why does the ABC think they need be more "politically correct" than the dictionary or the Australian government - unless they have their own political agenda?
BTW - the ABC political agenda is fairly clear from the slant on many of its reports.
Posted by hadpami, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 10:51:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ABC seems to be displaying terminology-sensitivities only where the Palestinians are concerned. Organizations may be proscribed as 'terrorist' by the government and/or the UN,- but the individual engaging in terrorism is using his/her free-will. Elevating the status of the terrorist by calling them anything else simply encourages others to perpetrate such acts. Often there are monetary rewards involved for the families,plus a (dead) 'hero'-status from their handlers and community and then the world's media treats them with respect on top of it? Why would suceptible individuals not be seduced to keep on doing it,- anywhere and everywhere someone will put them up to it?
A perpetrator of terror is a terrorist,- no qualifications please!
Posted by mimi, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 11:31:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
professional journalism which requires clarity is paramount.

the fact is that the ABC glaring omission,
the ongoing terrorism in iraq and elsewhere,
is testimony to the need for the
"ABC Style Guide" to be
in need of immediate and proper editing.
Posted by cuttingedge, Thursday, 30 June 2005 12:47:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This quote:

"Yes, I am a terrorist," he says. "Write that down: I admit I am a terrorist. [The Koran] says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim."

Is from an interview in this week's Time Magazine with a young man training to be a suicide bomber
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1077288,00.html

I think that settles THAT argument!
Posted by workrite, Thursday, 30 June 2005 1:20:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter". Only an idiot or an immoral person says something like that. A terrorist is someone who kills the innocent, usually women or children, usually because he is afraid of his real enemy. A freedom fighter is just a propaganda term for the same. Our founding fathers didn't call themselves freedom fighters; they called themselves rebels, which they were. And they didn't target the innocent. They fought enemy soldiers.

It is the same today. The U.S. army is very careful to only target enemy soldiers or terrorists. Israel too only targets enemy soldiers or terrorists. But our enemies target the innocent: women, children and bystanders who have nothing to do with the fight. That is immoral. It is evil and it is what makes them terrorists.

Anyone who tries to muddy the issue with that idiotic "terrorist/freedom fighter" line makes it easier for murderers to get away with it.
Posted by Isaac, Thursday, 30 June 2005 4:18:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what would you define as state based terrorism?
What do you call nation states who have not been threated by other nation states - but because of alliances go to war with this same nations?
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 30 June 2005 6:14:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it particularly worrying that the very people who have been entrusted to communicate to the public about world events, ie certain broadcasting organisations, their journalists and their editors and so on, are the ones that lack the clarity, moral integrity and courage to do so. They can't call a spade a spade...or a terrorist a terrorist! And what pathetic excuses they make. Makes me wonder whether these people really understand how dangerous a game they play.
Feisty
Posted by feisty, Thursday, 30 June 2005 6:20:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The word terrorism should be linked to acts not ideology. I like this definition -

When a politically motivated group attacks civilians – irrespective of country, nationality and cause – the only proper response is uncompromising condemnation. Those who kill or maim defenseless people should never be entitled to the honour of being regarded as freedom fighters. Irrespective of the legitimacy of the struggle, the politically motivated killing of civilians is terrorism.
Rohan Gunaratna, 2002

There a plenty of words to cover government or criminal violence against civilions.
Posted by davod, Thursday, 30 June 2005 10:09:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps there are good reasons for the press to avoid using the word "terrorist" in regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict? The report Off the Charts: Accuracy in Reporting of Israel/Palestine http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/net-report.html sets out some of them. The findings of responsibility in the Kahan Commission Report set out others, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1982-1984/104%20Report%20of%20the%20Commission%20of%20Inquiry%20into%20the%20e. Reports of the 1953 massacre in Qibya (eg http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0712-03.htm) set out yet more. The reporting of B'Tselem, at http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp looks more clearly at the terror than this article.
Posted by isabelberners, Friday, 1 July 2005 10:05:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
War of course is a form of terrorism used by the wealthier nations.
In spite of the extensive use of high tech weapons by the coalition of the willing, they have killed many thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A terrorist can use a guided missile or a car bomb. A terrorist may wear a uniform or not. A terrorist may be of any colour or religous belief.
The side which controls the media defines who are terrorists and who are soldiers doing their duty.
Language is important and we may easily be mislead by accepting the definition given to a word by spin doctors.
Posted by Peace, Monday, 4 July 2005 7:14:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suspect that Fran’s article is a disguised attack on the ABC alleging anti Israeli bias. If Fran said directly that the ABC is more sympathetic towards the Palestinians that would be easier to refute as any snapshot of the media over a reasonable period of time would clearly show the reverse. This all can be easily measured in terms of air time etc.

To imply that the Palestinian position has been given more sympathy when setting program formats and discussion agenda is frankly ludicrous. The ABC could conduct a whole series of discussions about Iran and its nuclear threat representing each side equally, however if they NEVER discuss Israel’s nuclear arsenal and how the Arab peoples feel about it you have focused on an agenda that suits the supporters of the USA and Lacuid.

The whole discussion about the merits of what was at the time the proposed Iraq question throughout 2002 carefully avoided the Israel factor preferring to focus almost exclusively on WMD’s. Even when the PM used non compliance with UN resolutions as a reason for war in ABC interviews on both Lateline & 7:30 Report, no one in the ABC asked how will the Arab world react seeing UN resolutions enforced so harshly and bluntly against the people of Iraq and never enforced against Israel? Even if this were a irrational perception on the Arab part it was nonetheless highly relevant to how the intervention would be accepted by the Iraqi people and the whole success of the mission depended on its legitimacy in their eyes and those in the region.

The obvious questions of concern to those who did not support the proposed intervention were never addressed in the priority that they would have set if they had any input to the discussion agenda.

Quite frankly if the ABC was biased in the manner implied by Fran’s article we would have seen Scott Ritter on ABC more often than we saw Richard Butler. The fact is Richard Butler was interviewed and included in discussions many times whereas Scott Ritter was not.
Posted by TonyR, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 1:26:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah10
I expect journalists to be honest, whoever they work for. Reality is, journalists, are either, honest, biased, scared or gagged.
The ABC staff have been doing Howard's "balance" for years, they are not allowed a personal opinion, so freedom of speech is denied.
The word "Terrorist" "Terrorism" [creating or causing terror in my language] is used as a propaganda tool, dominately by America, England and Australia, who promote, "they are evil", "we are righteous".
Palestine, Iraq and Aphganistan are occupied by their invaders and their peoples have experienced the most intensified and sustained terror, than any other nation in recent history.
When bombs are dropped from the sky this is just as cowardly, as bombs exploded on the ground, the difference though, from the sky more killing effective than on the ground.
Coaching or influencing journalists will not change the standards of reporting, as government and corporate bosses will maintain control of the airwaves and the dailies. Long live Democracy.
Posted by Sarah10, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:35:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy