An email to Reuters editors
When writing about terrorism, Reuters is hamstrung.
It’s been pilloried for not using the word, but effectively just coins its own synonyms. These are then selectively applied, with the result that words lose their meanings and become loaded with others.
Meanwhile, all manner of violent extremists are branded “al-Qaeda-linked”, presumably because a Western official says they are. Quite what these links are supposed to amount to is rarely explained, even when governments rein in their rhetoric to “al-Qaeda-inspired”.
I wrote to the editor in charge of global general news coverage and asked for clarification.
From: Daniel Simpson
Sent: 27 November 2006 12:35
To: Paul Holmes
Subject: “Militants” and “Al Qaeda”Dear Paul,
Listening to the BBC World Service this weekend, I was struck by repeated references to “Palestinian fighters”. The word “militant” was conspicuously absent, for a change, but it seems to have become a staple of Reuters stories from the Middle East.
I was wondering whether you (or indeed senior editors at the BBC) were aware of this edict from Al Jazeera English, which reminded me of the Reuters style guide entry on terrorism:
“[L]isten to any existing news network and the word ‘militant’ is likely to pop up with monotonous regularity. We have simply made the decision not to call groups militant unless they consider themselves to be so. We are not trying to cover up the fact that some of those groups may be responsible for terrible atrocities – we will be reporting those of course – we just want to make sure we are not overlaying our own prejudices and resorting to easy journalistic short-cuts.” [1]
In your FAQ accompanying the revised style guide in 2004, you wrote that words such as militant, guerrilla, insurgent and rebel “can be used, but make sure you are using them in the proper context”, suggesting correspondents “do a story search” to determine “the most appropriate way to describe a group or its members”. [2]
Has there been a subsequent ruling that “militant” should be used as a synonym for armed Palestinian? The usage appears to contradict guidance in the style guide, which states:
“We aim for a dispassionate use of language so that individuals, organisations and governments can make their own judgment on the basis of facts. Seek to use more specific terms like ‘bomber’, or ‘bombing’, ‘hijacker’ or ‘hijacking’, ‘attacker’ or ‘attacks’, ‘gunman’ or ‘gunmen’ etc.” [3]
Why then do Reuters stories not refer to Palestinian “fighters”, “gunmen”, “armed groups”, “militias” or any other description of what people do, rather than giving them a political label that conveys nothing about their actions?
Leaving aside the images of mouthy Scousers conjured up for some UK readers, why is the word “militant” acceptable if “terrorist” isn’t?
I’m also confused by references in Reuters copy to “al Qaeda”. To quote the Observer journalist Jason Burke, whose book on Islamist insurgency synthesises research by more learned experts:
“‘Al-Qaeda’ is a messy and rough designation, often applied carelessly in the absence of a more useful term.” [4]
