The Language of Terrorism (washingtonpost.com)

Washington Post Ombudsman, Michael Getler, becomes the latest newspaper Ombudsman to address his paper's lack of use of the word terrorist, and the latest in line to demonstrate his moral vapidity.

Most of the piece is fairly uninteresting, frankly, and amounts to the usual "we tell the facts and let the reader decide" line.

Like the Boston Globe before them, the Post is attempting a moral neutrality. But by simply re-printing and juxtaposing the statements of two sides, a report cannot help but lend credibility and equivalence to the statements of both, however. Such equivalence between Israelis on one side, and Hamas spokemen on the other, for instance, grants equality between a legitimate government and a group of people who really are thugs and genocidal murderers on the other. "We just present the facts and let the reader decide" is not sufficient when the complete set of relevant facts the average reader would need to make an intelligent assessment are never present in any individual story. The editors of the Washington Post, however, should have that background knowledge and understanding of context, and it should be reflected in their use of language. The fact that it is not does not reflect well on the Post, just as it did not on the Boston Globe.

Refusal to "take a side" plays into the hands of the most extreme elements. In a context where one side is determined to lie, and the other, constrained by their own free-societies, couldn't do so effectively if they wanted to, one side is necessarily favored. Put another way, where the sides are not morally equivalent, strictly repeating the pronouncements of both sides can never be - morally equivalent, that is. Actual work is required of reporters and editors to actually get the story straight.

Imagine the statements of General Vince Brooks and the statements of Baghdad Bob being simply reported at face value...Aha, one might say, but that's where the reporter's responsibility to report the facts comes in. It's still not a fair fight, however. Where one side has speech protections and an independent police force, judiciary and press, and the other side is closed, is known to intimidate the press (as is known to happen in the Palestinian areas), and news organizations are often forced to employ the locals, rather than using more disinterested third-parties for their reportage, the press's ability to report the statements of public officials may be equal, but their ability to check the veracity of such reports, or add their own research which may run in a contrary direction gives one side a tremendous advantage over the other. Recall Eason Jordan's admission that CNN had hushed-up reporting on Saddam's attrocities prior to the war. With a lazy press, free societies will always come out on the short end of the stick in these contests.

There are solid reasons for labeling groups like Hamas "terrorist." The Washington Post should find them out and have the guts to report them.

Getler's concluding paragraph on the differences between Hamas and Al Qaeda do not give one confidence that Post can do so, however.

This is false, as we know that Al Qaeda seeks to establish an Islamic super-state, the same as Hamas, but on an even larger scale. We also know that Al Qaeda conducts "humanitarian" work - remember Washington Senator Patty Murray's remarks about the people loving Osama because he's been out there building roads and day-care and health-care centers, etc...? And let us not forget that if it weren't for terrorists like those in Hamas, there wouldn't be a need for such groups to provide any social services (which they certainly provide for cynical purposes in any case).

Getler continues:

Hamas is supported from abroad, however. But really, what does being "indigenous" have to do with whether a group is "terrorist" or not?

This is also false. Al Qaeda has been at war with us for some years, it's just that we, being a much larger country than Israel, weren't taking much notice of it until recently. And again, what does the length of the conflict have to do with the terrorist label? It's the nature of the conflict, and specifically with the nature of the attacks by one of the sides that indictates when the label should be applied. Further, while "Israelis and Palestinians" may have been at war for a long time, we're talking about a specific group, not the entire nation.

NO! A conscious tactical and strategic decision on the part of terrorism's organizers has bred suicide bombers, not the conflict itslef. There have been many more brutal conflicts and many far more oppressed peoples who's struggles have not become so debased as to breed the suicide bomber.

The other factor breeding the suicide bomber is, of course, its success in achieving goals, thanks in no small part to the fecklessness and moral indolence of the Western press.

Yes. One is against "us," the other against "them."

It's true. Factual reporting is better than labels. There are situations so extreme, however, that one cannot avoid them without being rightfully accused of a failure to properly provide context and thus provide information essential to an accurate view of events - such as supplying what should be the obvious negative light deserved by groups such as Hamas.

By it's continuing, and sometimes arrogant, moral obtuseness, the Western press has contributed to terrorism's success. By holding to this line, Getler and the Washington Post must accept their share of this horrible responsibility.

(May come back to edit this later - being dragged out now...hay-ride! Oooh...and I see there's a positive story from Iraq on the front page of the Boston Globe, too! OKok...coming dear...)