Are they “Militants” or “Terrorists”

Recently, Chareidio Global News was called to task over the use of the word "militant" in place of "terrorist" that appeared in one of our stories on a rocket attack launched from Gaza against the Israeli town of Sderot. Indeed, many consider it a "distortion of words", a mudding of the distinction between good and evil, when the terminology is changed. After all, how can society fight terrorists if we are unable to confront the phenomenon for what it is?  

Over the course of the last two decades, as political correctness and moral relativism have grown stronger, the word "terrorist" has undergone significant changes.  Everyone agrees on what a terrorist is; however, no one seems to agree on who, exactly, is a terrorist. In many circles, the word has simply come to mean "our bad guy, that we hate".  There are many examples of this, perhaps the most poignant being US President Ronald Reagan’s reference to the Islamist Mujahideen terrorists as "freedom fighters" in their vicious and terroristic insurgency fought against the Soviets in the 1980s.  

There is no consensus on the bureaucratic definition of terrorism, and there are over one hundred ways that the term is defined. Accordingly, political entities such as the United Nations, European Union, and US Government and other various states and localities have official designations to establish how the various militant organizations will be viewed.  Thus we are left with an uncanny situation in which, for example, members of the group Abu Sayyaf are deemed ‘terrorists” according to the United States and the UK, but not by the European Union, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which the European Union grants ‘terror’ status, is not viewed that way in Great Britain.  Even the status of the group Hamas is disputed in Australia.  The blatant ambiguity has the effect of relegating the word "terrorist" to a purely rhetorical plane, and robbing it of its former substance.

In addition, the emotional charge to the word brings with it elements of hatred and moral opprobrium which makes use of it difficult in rational discussion, and can be counter-productive because the word’s rhetorical dynamic and definitional ambiguity in modern usage distracts and divides rather then helping build consensus. On the other hand, the word ‘militant’ simply means, "disposed to warfare or hard-line policies". While application of the term "terrorist" to Palestinian militant organizations goes according to one’s political perspective in modern usage, there is no dispute that those launching rockets into southern Israel are militants. It is on this account that governments and international press editors have come to avoid the use of the word "terrorist".

Labeling terrorists as "militants" does not mean taking a soft political or military stance.  Under international law, attacks against non-combatants are illegal and can be prosecuted; there are diplomatic angles; the Jewish State has the military means to fight if necessary.  But in the war of words, unfortunately, enmity is all that is achieved by this overused and ruined term.  On Chareidio, even the grand terrorist of them all, Osama bin Laden, has to be referred to as "arch-terrorist" because the word "terrorist" on it’s own conveys such little meaning.  Sometimes we refer to terrorists as "perpetrators of acts of terror" because it helps to convey what the word ‘terrorist’ doesn’t anymore, and we also use the word "murder," which fortunately still carries it’s own moral weight. The reason for our reticence towards the use of the word “terrorist,” therefore, is not because we believe the militants in Gaza aren’t terrorists, but rather because the word itself has lost it’s luster.

When Naming is Framing- The Ponzi Scheme

As authorities make their belated swoop on the now-defunct Ponzi scheme that once went by a prestigious Wall Street name, mass-media has gathered on the sidelines to report the facts of the case as they become available.

 

There’s little to say, of course, other than what is quoted directly from court documents, and from companies now acknowledging the possibility of having incurred serious losses if indeed the firm’s asset base is truly depleted.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop the press from waxing eloquent on the topic, and the ubiquitous various blog entries and forum posts have made the perpetrator of the scam a household name even though the claims made against him have not yet been proven.

 

Based on news reports, it may seem reasonable to assume that the ‘perpetrators’ are as guilty as the day is long, but that doesn’t presume the right to bandy about their family name in disdain while waiting for the verdict.  Chareidio may be the only news or news blogging site on the internet to refrain in this regard, but we see it as a very important distinction between us and other news services (including religious ones), and an attractive feature for a growing loyal readership that values the same ideals as we do.

Media Frenzy: How to deal with a crisis.

Media Frenzy: How to deal with a crisis.

Michoel Lipman, Founder
Chareidio Global News Network

December 1, 2008

News media never pervades our consciousness as much as in a crisis. When something awful happens, such as the tragic terror attack in Mumbai last week, one of our first reactions, unfortunately, is to seek out the news media for answers to our questions, which it provides in overabundance, sharing every shred of available information with little regard for it’s accuracy or substance. Crises, especially in drawn-out situations   amplify our reliance on these news sources because they seemingly require us to be constantly updated in order to remain informed.  In this most recent instance, several religious Jewish news media outlets joined the bandwagon, providing coverage 24/6, garnering the news from sources that religious people themselves would feel uncomfortable frequenting, and disseminating it sometimes verbatim.  

Any comment, testimony or statement, official or not, is prey for inclusion in news media coverage, as long as it ‘informs’ enough to stimulate an emotional response that will drive traffic back to the same news source for another bite later. This past week, a few religious portals went so far as to embed live video from CNN — a secular television news channel — beaming into homes several hundred thousands bytes-worth of TV news featuring Indian anchorwomen, some clad immodestly, declaring with controlled hysteria that they lacked a clue as to what was happening inside the numerous buildings under attack.  

In the case of the Mumbai crisis, the perceived need for information felt crucial to Jews globally, who worried about the outcome in the city’s Chabad House. Nonetheless, reporting the events myself, I was dismayed by what I perceived as news sites taking advantage of the public’s fear and "need to know" in order to advance their reader growth and "number of hits" (which translates directly into increased advertising revenues).

I examined the extensive reporting of the crisis on one particular Jewish website that tries hard to keep people ‘well informed’. Reviewing the updates carefully, I categorized each entry, marking every sentence or paragraph according to whether I thought the text contained confirmed material events; material events ancillary to the main story; speculative statements; dubious or unconfirmed reports; uninformative remarks; or comments serving primarily to validate or authenticate the news portal for marketing purposes. The results were interesting:

Of 3968 words appearing over the day as updates to the main story, 714 words (18%) were spent communicating significant material events, with an additional 372 words (9.3%) reporting on material events albeit of ancillary information.  Approximately 700 words I found uninformative, repetitive or unnecessary.  Astoundingly, there were over 900 words (22%) of seriously questionable and speculative reporting, tagged by descriptive words such as ‘unconfirmed’, ‘possibly’, ‘may have been seen’, and so on.   

Granted that for some, these results may not seem so bad, and that another person’s count of the same text might garner different results, I found the exercise helpful for me in working to clarify where to draw the line between keeping people properly informed, and joining in a secular media feeding frenzy.  

Here are my personal conclusions: 

1.  News updates in a crisis should be restricted to substantive material events that are confirmed to be reasonably reliable, in order to avoid wasting time and spreading rumors (or panic).  

2.  When an update to a news story is presented, it should contain a time stamp in addition to some indication of when the next update will be posted, so that the reader is freed of the need to constantly revisit the site to check for the latest entry.

3. When possible, a news site should compile the substance of each new update into a timeline that quickly recaps events without requiring the reader to spend time on repetitive information. 

4.  Under no circumstances should a religious Jewish news site embed, link or stream secular television news on its portal.

I am not a halachic or moral authority, nor am I pretending to be one. I share my private opinion; one that will undoubtedly come to bear on how news is reported on my own Chareidio Global News site.


The author, Michoel Lipman, is founder and editor of the Chareidio Global News, a digest of international news stories delivered with the religious reader in mind, sensitively, and without sensationalism, rhetoric or gossip. Chareidio daily news is available by telephone at 972-2-537-8085, and by email, RSS or podcast subscription, and at www.Chareidio.com.