The press and the terrorists

By Joseph Farah

Two recent announcements by press organizations in the wake of the Islamic terrorist attacks on the U.S. are troubling:

  • Reuters, the London-based international news wire service, has concluded that use of the word “terrorist” should be avoided. “We do not characterize the subjects of news stories but instead report their actions, identity and background,” Reuters announced Sept. 25.

  • The Religion Newswriters Association, a group to which I once belonged, suggests that reporters avoid the term “Islamic terrorist” or similar labels. “Terrorist acts are committed by individuals and groups for reasons that often involve a complex mix of cultural, religious, nationalist, economic and psychological motives,” said a resolution approved by the group.

Here’s my problem with this kind of thinking – or, shall I say, non-thinking – within my profession: It might make sense if there were some consistency to the rules. But there isn’t.

Reuters, and every other news agency in the world, use labels all the time – even WorldNetDaily, though, I would suggest, we apply them more carefully than most.

Take Reuters, for instance. The editors don’t like the word “terrorist” any more. But what about other labels? What about “right-wing”? I did a quick search and found dozens and dozens of examples of the gratuitous use of this term – and only occasionally referring to the hockey position.

What about “far right”? Again, bingo – lots of hits.

What about a less inflammatory label – like “moderate”? You’ll find Yasser Arafat and his minions constantly referred to with that label.

What about “hard-liner”? You’ll find Ariel Sharon is the only hard-liner in the Middle East.

But I thought Reuters editors didn’t believe in sticking labels on people – only in describing actions? That’s their story and they’re sticking to it. Guess what? No amount of evidence to the contrary will persuade them they are wrong.

They are wrong, however. They’re wrong about the word “terrorist,” too. If civilized people – and that includes most reporters and editors I know – cannot agree that what happened Sept. 11 was terrorism, we’ve got a real problem on our hands. What can we agree on, for heaven’s sake?

Why are we mincing words? If anything, terrorism is not a strong enough term to describe this atrocity. This is ultra-terror, this is super-terror, this is hyper-terror.

What’s wrong with these people? And, guess, what? Lots of U.S. journalists are agreeing with these journalistic extremists.

“I’m not sure they (Reuters editors) are making a mistake,” says Geneva Overholser, the former editor of the Des Moines Register and now a syndicated columnist. “Our professional strictures require us to give thoughtful consideration to matters that our fellow citizens would simply make an emotional decision on.”

Oh, give me a break. What professional strictures? Name them. Show them to me. I’ve been in this business 25 years and I’ve never seen such strictures – at least not rules that require us to forgo common sense and any judgment about right and wrong. The day I do is the day I find a new line of work.

What about these religion newswriters? This is why they are covering religion and not news. If these folks are unable to recognize and state clearly that the terrorism we witnessed Sept. 11 was the work of Islamic terrorists, what can we possibly trust them to tell us? A fact is a fact. The fact that makes us uncomfortable is no less a fact.

Is there any denying that the motivation for the terrorist attack on the United States was motivated by some bizarre and extreme interpretation of Islam? I don’t think so. So why should we be reluctant to say it?

I have noticed no such reluctance to categorize certain Americans as “right-wing Christian fundamentalists.” It’s a term you can find used and abused by every major news agency in the country. Why aren’t the religion newswriters holding conferences and issuing papers condemning that kind of bigotry? Kind of makes you wonder.

The religion newswriters also say we should refer to God instead of Allah in the context of stories about Islam. Well, guess what? My God – the only God – doesn’t want to be associated with the evil actions of the Islamic terrorists who attacked America and killed 7,000 people. If Muslims have a problem with that, let them all, in unison, condemn the terror and join us in hunting down the culprits.


Don’t miss Joseph Farah’s exclusive report “Jihad in America” in the November issue of Whistleblower magazine, WorldNetDaily’s monthly offline publication. Order your subscription now.

Joseph Farah

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and chief executive officer of WND. He is the author or co-author of 13 books that have sold more than 5 million copies, including his latest, "The Gospel in Every Book of the Old Testament." Before launching WND as the first independent online news outlet in 1997, he served as editor in chief of major market dailies including the legendary Sacramento Union. Read more of Joseph Farah's articles here.