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]
As he notes:
“It was the FBI—during its investigation of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa—which dubbed the loosely linked group of activists that Osama bin Laden and his aides had formed as ‘al Qaeda.’ This decision was partly due to institutional conservatism and partly because the FBI had to apply conventional antiterrorism laws to an adversary that was in no sense a traditional terrorist or criminal organization.” [5]
According to the late British government minister Robin Cook:
“Al-Qaida, literally ‘the database’, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.” [6]
As Burke stresses, however:
“Al-Qaeda remains useful as a term to describe bin Laden, his close associates and the infrastructure created in Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001. We now need to recognise that, as that construction has now been effectively demolished, so should the label ‘al-Qaeda’ be jettisoned, or at least understood as describing something other than a coherent structured organisation.” [7]
This isn’t, of course, to imply that there’s no one to label, since:
“The idea of ‘al Qaeda’ – the precept, the maxim, the formula, not ‘the base’ – is more powerful than ever.” [8]
But this suggests an “‘al-Qaeda’, defined as a universally transportable, universally applicable ideology and worldview” [9], not a network of networks. Reuters stories nonetheless frequently refer to groups being “linked to al Qaeda”. What does this actually mean?
Of course, it’s impossible to avoid the label completely, especially when some appear to be claiming it for themselves, as in Iraq. “You are a member of ‘al Qaeda’ if you say you are,” notes Burke. [10] But that doesn’t necessarily imply support from the bin Laden group, as the Zawahri-Zarqawi rift highlighted, or even a direct connection of any kind. In any case, as Burke stresses: “To label local groups as ‘al Qaeda’ is to overlook the particular local factors that led to their emergence”. [11]
Please clarify when it’s appropriate to refer to “al Qaeda”, what it’s supposed to mean and how usage of the term ought to be contextualised to ensure readers aren’t misled.
Thanks and best wishes,
Daniel
REFERENCES:
[1] “Nothing lost in translation”, by Al-Jazeera editor Tim Cunningham, 15 November 2006
[2] “TERRORISM AND OTHER EMOTIVE WORDS”, by Paul Holmes, 6 July 2004
[3] Reuters style guide entry on terrorism
[4] “Al Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam”, by Jason Burke, Penguin (2004), p. 1
[5] “Think Again: Al Qaeda”, by Jason Burke, Foreign Policy, May/June 2004
[6] “The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means”, by Robin Cook, The Guardian, 8 July 2005
[7] “Al-Qaeda – a meaningless label”, by Jason Burke, The Observer, 12 January 2003
[8] “Al Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam”, by Jason Burke, Penguin (2004), p. 14
[9] ibid., p. 286
[10] ibid., p.290
[11] ibid., p.10
This subject was eventually discussed on the Reuters intranet, where Paul Holmes responded as follows:
One man’s militant …?
by paul.holmes@reuters.com on 05 February 2007 @21:05 UTC
When readers criticise the Reuters policy on terrorism and other emotive words, they sometimes accuse us simply of substituting the word ‘militant’ for the word ‘terrorist’. They say they have come to treat is as a synonym for the word ‘terrorist’.Reading our file, militants do indeed crop up with extraordinary regularity.Dictionaries define a militant as a person who vigorously pursues a cause and is prepared to use force to do so. Technically, then, we are not wrong to use the term. But are we doing our readers a service by using it so regularly and, as with many of the words we use in journalism, perhaps unthinkingly?
Why, for example, are Hamas members almost invariably described as militants? Is the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines best described as militant or are they a bunch of bandits? What other words could we accurately use to describe groups and individuals when they espouse violence or when they use it in specific acts?
Last November, programme editor Tim Cunningham at Al-Jazeera English explained in an article for the Guardian Unlimited that the news channel had “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 just want to make sure we are not overlaying our own prejudices and resorting to easy journalistic short-cuts,” Cunningham wrote.
Is he right? What can we do to cut down on the worn word ‘militant’ or should we even do so?
I would welcome views on this blog, with thanks to Daniel Simpson of Reuters Television for raising this issue.
–
Re: One man’s militant …?
by toni.reinhold@reuters.com on 05 February 2007 @21:19 UTC
Let the facts tell the story and we won’t need words like
terrorist or militant. Readers can draw their own conclusions
from facts delivered in a clear, balanced, well sourced,
concise story with adequate context and background. Leave the
labeling to politicians, analysts and the like, who are quoted
in our stories.
–
Re: One man’s militant …?
by daniel.simpson@reuters.com on 06 February 2007 @09:07 UTC
Thanks for pursuing this, Paul.
You write:
“Dictionaries define a militant as a person who vigorously pursues a cause and is prepared to use force to do so. Technically, then, we are not wrong to use the term.”
Why, then, is it never used to describe the president of the United States?
You also ask:
“Why, for example, are Hamas members almost invariably described as militants?”
It’s a good question. My original question though was why the term had effectively become a synonym for a Palestinian with a weapon.
You go on to ask:
“What other words could we accurately use to describe groups and individuals when they espouse violence or when they use it in specific acts?”
Fighters? Gunmen? Bombers? The style guide 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.”
Why have labels been littering the file with increasing frequency since September 2001? Or, as I put the question in my original email to you:
“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?”
As you note with your reference to the Abu Sayyaf group, this tendency is not just confined to reporting about violence in the Middle East. I wonder, though, whether a more appropriate label exists, or indeed whether we need to use one on a generalised basis.
I look forward to reading other people’s thoughts on this.
Best wishes,
Daniel
–
Re: One man’s militant …?
by marcel.michelson@reuters.com on 06 February 2007 @09:47 UTC
If you follow the dictionary then militant means ‘active, determined and often willing to use force’ while a terrorist is someone who uses (threats of) violent action for political purposes. A terrorist is an extreme militant.
But in many languages other than English, in Latin languages spoken by a very large proportion of our audience, militant means someome who is active and determined, but not necessary using force (other than verbal or in the meaning of civic disobedience — blockades, strikes, chaining to railways). Armed force is used by the military.
I do fully agree with our basic tenet that one person’s ‘terrorist’ is another person’s freedom fighter, that goes back to the apartheid era in South Africa or perpaps even to India under the British empire. The meaning of the tenet is to be careful with labels because they have different meanings to different people.
But we can’t just call some-one who kills ten or 100 or more people in an act of terror, a ‘militant’.
Terror is a violent action which causes extreme fear. So someone who blows up a train station at rush hour is a terrorist, whatever the political motivation. But someone who hijacks a politician and kills the person, is not a terrorist but a hijacker and a killer.
The people who flew the planes into world trade center are terrorists, but people suspected of having aided and abbetted them are not ’suspected terrorists’ but suspects of criminal acts, or suspects of aiding terrorists.
Someone who blows him or herself up, killing others, is a suicide bomber.
A political group, sometimes resorting to violence, would be a violent extremist group, instead of militant. Hamas members could be called ‘armed fighters’ if they are armed and fight, or extremists when they only express their opinion, their helpers are supporters or members of an extremist organisation.
So what I like to propose is no blanket ‘No’ against terrorist, to avoid using euphemisms that in turn get upgraded in violent meaning due to repeated use, but establish a scale from acts of violence (rape) to brutal force (mass rape), murder (one or a few), mass murder (many) to terrorism (very many with an aim of installing fear).
These acts can be perpetrated by bombers, fighters, armed fighters, break-away factions, urban or jungle or mountain guerillas, left-wing or right-wing militias (not militants), armed bands, people’s armies, renegade military, mercenaries, soldiers, child-soldiers, religious fanatics, bandits, criminals, desperate poor people, enraged oppressed citizens, rioting prisoners, jailbreakers, rebels and even dangerous lunatics or rat-arsed Reuters reporters.
We should be careful not to take sides, but we should not duck out either.
–
Re: One man’s militant …?
by mark.trevelyan@reuters.com on 06 February 2007 @13:33 UTC
I agree that where possible, it’s much better to describe people’s actions than to resort to labels such as ‘militant’. But there are times — especially in a headline or lead — when this tag, despite its limitations, is the most efficient alternative to “terrorist” and helps steer the reader quickly to what the story is about.
That said, we could actually use the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” on the file more often than we do. Many people run a mile from these terms, consider them banned, or believe they can only be used in inverted commas, a practice which sometimes makes us appear ridiculous. Reuters does not deny the existence of terrorists and terrorism and there’s nothing to stop us using these words in the general sense. But the point is we don’t use them to make our own value judgments on particular groups or their actions.
Another widespread fallacy is that we can avoid the pitfalls by using “terror” as a synonym for the other T words. That’s just sloppy language. Terror isn’t the same as terrorism ; it’s the emotion that the terrorist wants you to feel.
As a regular user, perhaps over-user, of the term ‘militant’, I believe this is a useful discussion and one that will make me think more carefully about employing it in my own stories. But I wouldn’t advocate banning it.
–
Re: One man’s militant …?
by simon.denyer@reuters.com on 27 February 2007 @08:33 UTC
Daniel has raised some very important points and I agree we need to think very carefully about the blanket use of a label like militant. It’s also good to remember what the style guide says about using specific words to describe what people did (like gunmen, bombers) whenever possible, rather than labels.
But I also I tend to agree with Marcel as well. I am concerned that we routinely substitute the word “militant” for “terrorist” without thinking.
An example would be the 2006 bombings of trains in Mumbai that killed 186 people. Most people described this as “India’s worst terrorist attack since 1993″. Reuters chose to say it was “India’s worst militant attack since 1993″. But did that being us closer to an objective description of what happened? I would argue not.
Personally I would argue that was a classic act of terrorism as defined in most dictionaries. Acts of extreme violence perpetrated on the general public and designed to provoke fear, (whether or not you agree with the cause). Militants who only attack security forces in Kashmir might well object to being tarred with the same brush as the Mumbai bombers.
That’s not to say we should start using the word terrorist or terrorism throughout our copy. But if we are forced to use labels because there is really no other way, let’s use the right one.
So how do we describe groups like Hamas or Lashkar-e-Taiba? Lashkar, for example, deny attacking innocent people but do not deny using violence. Militant would seem to be the best description. Is violent extremist any better? Who is to say they are “extreme” in their views? That is one step away from calling them unreasonable.
If we are to ban a word, it probably should be terror. Say terrorism or say something else. Terror is as loaded as terrorism and not as precise a word.
Simon
–
Re: One man’s militant …?
by ralph.gowling@reuters.com on 28 February 2007 @21:22 UTC
I endorse Toni Reinhold’s contribution.
Too many judgmental words appear on our file unnecessarily.
–
Re: One man’s militant …?
by william.tarrant@reuters.com on 01 March 2007 @14:05 UTC
My Thesaurus gives the following synonyms for militant: activist, belligerent, combatant, demonstrator, fighter, objector, partisan, protestor, rioter, warrior … oh, yes and manly.
Mohatma Gandhi, that apostle of civil disobedience, espoused a creed of militant nonviolence. The late Malcolm X, was routinely described as a black militant when he was preaching in the 60s. Now he would be described as a black nationalist or Afro-American activist. One age’s militant is another age’s human rights fighter.
Militant is not then the best word we can use in many cases. Those fighting Indian rule in Kashmir, for instance, can be called insurgents, guerrillas, anti-India gunmen, Islamic fighters, assailants. (But militant does help out in headline writing)
As the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland says: A word means exactly what I say it means.”
Hope helps
