[Media-watch] gavin esler and 'terrorism'

[mikeberry at hushmail.com]

Here's a brief exchange between myself and Gavin Esler- what do think
of his reply.

Dear Mr Esler, 

I was rather disturbed to see that you had referred to attacks committed
by small Iraqi units against Allied troops as ‘terrorism’ during an interview
with a British/American military spokesman on Newsnight on March 23rd
2003. I find it difficult to see how you can describe attacks committed
by Iraqi forces against an invading army as ‘terrorism’- perhaps you
could explain it to me, 

Yours Sincerely, 

Mike Berry. 



Dear Mr Berry 

Rather than get disturbed, I'd pick up a dictionary. The nearest one
to hand (Collins) says terrorism is "the act of terrorising, systematic
use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal ... government
or opposition to government by means of terror." The OED says it came
into English with the Jacobins in the French Revolution, an act by a
government to terrorise its people. I hope this helps. 
Yours sincerely 
Gavin Esler 


Dear Mr Esler, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my email. I appreciate
you must be very busy, and so your swift reply shows that you take your
responsibility to the BBC's public service ethos seriously. 

However I must say I find your reply disingenuous. If we were to apply

your dictionary definition literaly then surely we would have to describe
the Anglo-US attack as 'terrorism' because it is undeniably involves
"the act of terrorising, systematic use of violence and intimidation
to achieve some goal ... government or opposition to government by means
of terror." But we are unlikley to hear the BBC news describing the US/UK
attack in this manner. This leads to two obvious points 

1. Describing an action as 'terrorism' involves journalists making a

political judgement, which make your attempts to reduce its usage down

to a dictionary definition rather faux naive. The use of terms such as

'rebel', 'freedom-figher', 'guerilla, 'militant' or 'terrorist' by journalists
is very significant in indicating social and/or (legal) legitimacy. Public
service broadcasters have a statutory responsibility to remain impartial
in reporting which is why, for instance, the BBC chooses to describe
Palestinian organisations such as Hamas as 'militant' rather than 'terrorist'
groups. Therefore your use of the term 'terrorism' in this respect shows
a clear breach of the BBC committment to impartiality. 

2. 'Terrorism' is generally understood to involve attacks on non-combatents/civilians.
This is certainly explicit in the US State Departments definition of
terrorism: 

"Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant
targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended
to influence an audience." 

Therefore it is difficult to see how you can describe attacks by irregular
Iraqi forces against US/UK army personnel who have invaded Iraq as 'terrorism'.
If the Iraqi forces were dressed in civilian clothing they may well have
breached the Geneva conventions and that is a serious matter. However
it still should not be described as 'terrorism'. The correct term to
use, which I note is generally used by your colleagues is 'resistance',
 


Yours Sincerely 
Mike Berry 







Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 

Big $$$ to be made with the HushMail Affiliate Program: 
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427