Dan Kennedy has an interesting post today taking the Globe’s ombudsman to task for refusing to apply to word “terrorist” to organizations like Hamas.
[S]he quotes Globe editor Martin Baron as saying, “The overall approach here is to describe events and present facts rather than to attack labels to individuals or groups. We particularly seek to avoid hot-button language that has become associated with a point of view …”
Well, now. It strikes me (and the American Heritage Dictionary) that a terrorist is a person who carries out acts of terrorism. And what is terrorism? Let’s turn to the dictionary again:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
…Chinlund has done an admirable job of trying to explain the Globe’s policy. But that doesn’t mean it makes a lot of sense.
Kennedy makes a valid point that the Globe has a double standard here (what’s supposedly self-obvious for the US is a hot-button issue when it comes to Israel), but pointing to the dictionary raises as many questions as it answers. What is lawful use of force? Who makes the law and can the law be applied to rig the game, i.e. to disallow oppressed parties to fight for national sovereignty? Which people or properties are at stake? If an organization targets a military compound or personnel, is that terrorism? The very ambiguity of the concept make it easy for misuse. And even if more or less correctly applied, the term is a loaded one.
It seems worthwhile, then, to come up first with a descriptive definition before a normative one. I would venture that three conditions must apply:
1. Terrorism must target a civilian population. This of course can mean attacking civilians. Or it may simply be destruction showing potential threat to civilian lives. The IRA often reported bombs to allow civilians to clear the area, yet these fit the common-sense definition of terrorism.
2. Just as it targets non-state actors, the attack or threat must come from non-state actors, even if such actors get assistance or harbor from a nation state.
3. It must rely on media broadcast of the event to amplify an isolated attack or threat into a greater national threat. This may seem a minor point, but it’s one that frames terrorism within a context of postmodern politics. Terrorism in the modern sense did not exist before the late 1960s, at which point the potential of modern broadcast media became apparent to various groups seeking disproportionate effect.
This three-part definition is not perfect, but it helps us differentiate terrorism from guerilla warfare and state warfare violating Geneva Conventions. It doesn’t really say anything about the normative part of the definition - that is, whether terrorism is by nature more immoral than these other categories of warfare. Of course, as a civilian who might be targeted by a terrorist attack, I have every interest to see that all fighting is kept within rules and between nation states’ armies. Furthermore, it’s not a stretch to argue that it’s in general interest that war is kept that way. Still, the issue of whether journalists should brandish the T word isn’t so cut and dry.
No comments have been added to this post yet.