Media self-regulation at work

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4964702.stm

[Jaylen Brit 0]

Good for the BBC - not sure how many other TV / news companies would care enough about being fair to even ASK so

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... the words "terrorism" and "terrorist", which the BBC currently advises its journalists to avoid because they can be "a barrier to understanding".

But the panel said the BBC should use the term to describe violence against civilians with the intention of causing terror for ideological objectives, "whether perpetrated by state or non-state agencies".

"It seems clear that placing a bomb on a bus used by civilians intending death or injury in supposed furtherance of a cause is a terrorist act and no other expression conveys so tersely and accurately the elements involved."

Interesting! Especially the "state or non-state" part.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

sheesh. I can't even believe these are debateable words.

That included the use of the words "terrorism" and "terrorist", which the BBC currently advises its journalists to avoid because they can be "a barrier to understanding".

But the panel said the BBC should use the term to describe violence against civilians with the intention of causing terror for ideological objectives, "whether perpetrated by state or non-state agencies".

"It seems clear that placing a bomb on a bus used by civilians intending death or injury in supposed furtherance of a cause is a terrorist act and no other expression conveys so tersely and accurately the elements involved."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Good for the BBC - not sure how many other TV / news companies would care enough about being fair to even ASK so

Depends on the code of reporting standards at that particular institution.

With corporate owned media (which owns most, if not all print and broadcast media) there is always a bit of a conflict between ensuring fair coverage, and complying with internal corporate pressures.

In an ideal world the corporate types would stay out of the journalistic side of news reporting, they don't of course and therein lies a big problem.

sheesh. I can't even believe these are debateable words.

That included the use of the words "terrorism" and "terrorist", which the BBC currently advises its journalists to avoid because they can be "a barrier to understanding".

But the panel said the BBC should use the term to describe violence against civilians with the intention of causing terror for ideological objectives, "whether perpetrated by state or non-state agencies".

"It seems clear that placing a bomb on a bus used by civilians intending death or injury in supposed furtherance of a cause is a terrorist act and no other expression conveys so tersely and accurately the elements involved."

Terrorist is an emotionally loaded term.

Goes back to the difference between a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom fighter'. One is sympathetic, one isn't.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Terrorist is an emotionally loaded term.

Goes back to the difference between a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom fighter'. One is sympathetic, one isn't.

People I support are freedom fighters. People I oppose are terrorists. Very cut and dry for me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Terrorist is an emotionally loaded term.

Goes back to the difference between a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom fighter'. One is sympathetic, one isn't.

People I support are freedom fighters. People I oppose are terrorists. Very cut and dry for me.

Aha, but its not necessarily so cut and dry in the news.

[Fuzzness 2]

Terrorist is an emotionally loaded term.

Goes back to the difference between a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom fighter'. One is sympathetic, one isn't.

People I support are freedom fighters. People I oppose are terrorists. Very cut and dry for me.

seems that simple to me too

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Terrorist is an emotionally loaded term.

Goes back to the difference between a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom fighter'. One is sympathetic, one isn't.

People I support are freedom fighters. People I oppose are terrorists. Very cut and dry for me.

seems that simple to me too

They're just saying reporters should be careful where and in what context they use that word.

[Fuzzness 2]

perhaps CNN and Fox News should be more careful too. I'm more worried about them than the BBC

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Terrorist is an emotionally loaded term.

Goes back to the difference between a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom fighter'. One is sympathetic, one isn't.

People I support are freedom fighters. People I oppose are terrorists. Very cut and dry for me.

Aha, but its not necessarily so cut and dry in the news.

They should call me to clarify in the future.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

perhaps CNN and Fox News should be more careful too. I'm more worried about them than the BBC

Absolutely.