In the March 17 HonestReporting communique, we critiqued the ongoing double standard at news outlets such as the Washington Post, which described the Madrid bombing as “the worst terror attack in modern Spanish history,” but insisted on calling the nearly-simultaneous (and nearly-identical) Ashdod bombing as the work of Palestinian “militants.”
In apparent response to this HonestReporting alert, Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler maintains his position (first articulated on 9/21/03) that the double standard against Israeli terror victims is justified, in his weekly column:
A couple of readers last week, noting Post news reporting from Madrid about “the worst terrorist attack in modern Spanish history,” once again challenged The Post’s use of language when reporting Palestinian suicide bomber attacks against, for example, an Israeli bus or cafe. These are usually not described as terrorist attacks in The Post, except in the words of Israeli or other officials. This issue has come up before and has been discussed in this column before. But the initial stories from Madrid provide a new challenge.
Post editors, and I, agree that the devastating attacks in Spain or a bus bombing in Israel are terrorist acts. But as a rule, they say, these labels are not helpful compared with factual reporting about what happened. Furthermore, the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is different, as is the conflict in Iraq, in which suicide bombings and other attacks are described rather than labeled. Readers know very well what is happening.
The Israelis, of course, describe such acts as terrorism. But to adopt the language of one side in what is essentially a bitter war carried out daily over many years by gunmen and suicide bombers on one side and an army on the other is not something that The Post, or most other news organizations, is going to do. Palestinians view many Israeli actions — collective punishment, targeted killings, civilian casualties, house demolitions — as terrorism, as do some human rights groups. But The Post does not adopt their language either.
Terrorism is like other things that you know when you see, and The Post should not shy away from that word when it is useful for the general reader. The use of that term in early reports from Madrid does not, in my view, make The Post guilty of “hypocrisy,” as some readers claim, with respect to its terminology for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Our response:
Post editors, and I, agree that the devastating attacks in Spain or a bus bombing in Israel are terrorist acts.
If there is such a consensus in the newsroom, why does the Post deviate from it in print?
these labels are not helpful compared with factual reporting about what happened.
“Not helpful” to whom? To the readers? Most readers would consider the use of the word “terrorism” to describe brutal suicide bombings very accurate, and therefore quite ‘helpful.’ Here, when Getler says “not helpful,” he really means “not objective.” But when a paper deviates from popular usage, and accepted moral norms, that is “not objective.”
the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is different…Readers know very well what is happening.
Readers “knew what was happening” in Madrid also, but describing it as “terrorism” was still the most accurate method of reporting. Why not in Israel?!
to adopt the language of one side in what is essentially a bitter war carried out daily over many years by gunmen and suicide bombers on one side and an army on the other is not something that The Post, or most other news organizations, is going to do.
Is the battle with al Qaeda any less “bitter”? Are there not millions of people throughout the Mideast who identify with radical Muslim jihad against the West? Nonetheless, the Post calls their acts “terrorism.” Is that not “choosing sides”? And as we pointed out in this communique, a number of major news outlets (such as the New York Times and CNN) have begun calling Palestinian terror “terror.”
Palestinians view many Israeli actions — collective punishment, targeted killings, civilian casualties, house demolitions — as terrorism, as do some human rights groups.
These definitions of “terrorism” deviate completely from the accepted definition of the US State Dept., and most readers’ definitions, for they are defensive acts, aimed only at perpetrators of terrorism, not all civilians. A reminder of the State Dept.’s definition of “terrorism”:
premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
The Washington Post’s hypocrisy on this issue is all the more disturbing for their refusal to own up to it.
Comments to: [email protected]
For more on this issue, see HonestReporting’s webpage “Calling Terror by Its Name”
