Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to NewsvineSomething is really off when everyone from CNN (look down to the World section) to the news on the AOL homepage (see the Top News) describe the attack on public bus in Jerusalem as the work of a "terrorist", using quotes because of their apparent discomfort with calling this an act of terror and labeling this murderer, a terrorist. If that is not terror, what is? And yes, I already imagine the litany of description of Israeli military activity that this question invites. And I have no interest in that debate right now. I want to understand why, even for those who would make such counter charges about Israel, what this man did is not terror.
And the BBC is even worse. Check out the clip that they posted as the news broke, and you will see something disgusting. Not disgusting because of blood and guts, which are happily not to be seen (even this murderer has a family and the pain that they will feel at his loss, should shape the images the press will use). It's because of their choice to open their video coverage with the smiling face of a bearded skull cap-wearing man with a pistol. They have zero coverage of the damage done, and like all the press this morning, are placing quote marks around the word terrorist when describing the driver who rolled the bus and killed at least three civilians.
I am the last to cry "anti-Semites", and am not even doing so now. But something here is very wrong and I hope you think so too, whatever your politics may be.
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
Comments
I believe that this was a horrible act of violence. Violence which is aimed at disrupting the lives of many others. I would certainly label him a terrorist, criminal, psychotic, and any other name that would suit someone like this. Names which sympathize with him, would not reflect his motives accurately. He deserves no sympathy, the victims do.
Posted by: Heidibichon | July 3, 2008 12:16 PM
Every violent act is not a terrorist act. I think the rabbi used an example which hinders the goal of accurate news reporting. Too often people who are clearly terrorists are called freedom fighters or given other euphonious names. In this instance, the man may have been a terrorist or he may have been lunatic or he may have been a violent criminal.
Generally a terrorist is someone who has a political objective which he hopes to advance (but seldom does) by violence against innocent people. A paranoid schizophrenic, however, may suffer from grandiose delusions and murder others due to his delusions.
While the bull dozer may have been a terrorist act, in this particular case, the media probably acted prudently by putting the terrorist label in quotations in order to signal that the terrorist appellation was not fully established.
Posted by: Ruvain | July 3, 2008 12:21 PM
I saw the video clip on several different news sources, and none of them started earlier. It may be the case that the clip itself started there, and that there was no "editing choice" involved at all. The use of quote marks around "terrorist" is, however, entirely inappropriate.
Posted by: Unpaid Intern | July 3, 2008 12:26 PM
It is possible that the news organizations are not ready to accept the idea that he is a true terrorist for one of two reasons. The first is that without an investigation of the incident, no one knows what the motivation of his actions was. The second reason is related. Even if the act was one of terror, it was not affiliated with any known terrorist organizations whose goal is to use violence against civilians to make them so frightened that they will accede to the terrorist's demands.
I find this evolution of the use of the word even more frightening, as it grants more legitimacy to terrorism.
Posted by: Jordan Hirsch | July 3, 2008 1:58 PM
Unfortunately, CNN is always more concerned for the Arab/Muslim brothers feelings, than their Jewish/Christian brothers. Who was in Lebanon, filming only the Israeli counter-attack? Yes, CNN. Who was in Israel, filming rockets being randomly fired into populated areas. CNN, NO. Only FOX was. Be aware of CNN.
Posted by: Eric Williams | July 3, 2008 8:25 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?