HonestReporting has continually stressed the importance of calling terror ‘terror’ in news reports, whether the premeditated attack against innocent civilians occurs in New York City, Jerusalem, or Baghdad.
The executive editor of the Miami Herald has just expressed his paper’s commitment to do so:
It’s Herald policy to use the most neutral language available in a given situation. We, too, label those who fight for a cause as militants. But unlike some of our colleagues, we see a line where a militant becomes a terrorist and we don’t shy away from the latter word. When a suicide bomber blows up a bus carrying innocent civilians, it’s an act of terrorism, not militancy.
The Herald is the latest in a string of papers to recently address this issue head-on, however belatedly.
Here’s an overview of the positions they have expressed. (Note particularly the distinction between al Qaeda and Hamas that the Orlando Sentinel, Boston Globe and Washington Post attempted to make) :
Name, newspaper |
Date of article |
Should we call Hamas ‘terrorists’ in news reports? |
Should we call al Qaeda ‘terrorists’ in news reports? |
Reasons for double standard |
Manning Pynn, Orlando Sentinel |
August 24, 2003 |
No | Shouldn’t have, but it’s too late now, so yes |
Americans’ shock; US wasn’t at war, Palestinians are resisting occupation |
Philip Gailey, St. Petersburg Times |
August 31, 2003 |
Yes | Yes | n/a – double standard should end |
Christine Chinlund, Boston Globe |
Sept. 8, 2003 | No; but their acts can be called “terrorism” |
Yes | Only Qaeda fits def. of “groups that have no clearly identifiable or explicitly articulated political objective”; Hamas’ social service functions; Israel is “far flung” |
Michael Getler, Washington Post |
Sept. 21, 2003 | No | Yes | Hamas’ territorial ambitions, nationalism, social work; al Qaeda is everywhere, but Hamas is regional; al Qaeda does random attacks, but Hamas part of war |
Tom Fielder, Miami Herald |
Jan. 4, 2004 |
Yes, when describing act at least |
n/a | n/a |
