In a column published on December 14, Clark Hoyt, The New York Times' current Public Editor, or reader representative, addressed the paper's choice of terminology for people who target civilians with the intent of killing them.
What brought Mr. Hoyt to address the issue was the Times' assiduous avoidance of the word "terrorist" for the perpetrators of what has come to be known as the Mumbai Massacre -- the late November Islamist attacks on hotels, a hospital, a railway station, a restaurant and a Jewish center in India's largest city that left 173 dead and more than 300 injured. The attackers were called "militants," "gunmen," "attackers" and "assailants" in the paper of record's reports but never "terrorists." Some readers were offended; thus the public editor's investigation and report.
He explained that "in the newsroom and at overseas bureaus, especially Jerusalem, there has been a lot of soul-searching about the terminology of terrorism." The upshot of the introspection, he continued, "to the dismay of supporters of Israel -- and sometimes of the other side, denouncing Israeli military actions" is that "The Times is sparing in its use of ‘terrorist' when reporting on that complex struggle." (One wonders if, examples of the military actions denounced by the "other side" include the recent killing of three Palestinians by Israeli forces; the three were planting explosives in northern Gaza along a border fence and, when accosted, threw hand grenades at the Israeli soldiers, who then returned fire – and the three, none too soon, to their Maker.)
Later in his essay, Mr. Hoyt takes up the issue of Hamas, the Sunni group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and which has launched scores of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians (targeting, among other things, buses, hotels, supermarkets and restaurants) and has fired hundreds of missiles at Israeli cities and town. The group that exults in the murder and maiming of innocent men, women and children, that trains its young to feel the same way, that denies the Holocaust and expresses confidence that, as one of its leaders put it in a Hamas newspaper, "the Holocaust is still to come upon the Jews." Mr. Hoyt explains that The Times chooses to not label Hamas a terrorist organization "though it sponsors acts of terror against Israel."
Media that are too weak-kneed to call evil what it is are, in their own way, complicit in the same.
The reason? Because it "was elected to govern Gaza" and "provides social services and operates charities, hospitals and clinics." He quotes deputy news editor Phil Corbett, who said, "You get to the question: Somebody works in a Hamas clinic -- is that person a terrorist? We don't want to go there." Mr. Hoyt concurs: "I think that is right."
Well, Mr. Corbett and Mr. Hoyt may prefer not to go there, but as journalists they really should realize their responsibility to make the trip. The "there," of course, is a different, and straightforward question: Does all an organization that routinely attacks innocents have to do to achieve respectability is garner the support of a population and open health clinics?
I've always been a foolhardy sort, so let me be the brave soul – there may even be others, if not in The Times' newsroom – who is perfectly willing to go there: The answer is No. A terrorist group is a terrorist group, even if it runs a hospital, wins elections, operates a soup kitchen, recycles its plastics and cares for abandoned kittens.
And all who choose to support such a group or, by working under its auspices, to empower it are members of a terrorist group and, thereby, accessories to terrorism.
What's more, media that are too weak-kneed to call evil what it is are, in their own way, complicit in the same.
(19) Barry, January 3, 2009 6:55 PM
Some journalists are so blatantly biased and play word games.
If some biased journalists were personally adversely affected, they most certainly would not be so smug and arrogant, and as a result of their being affected, perhaps they might acquire some iota of humility.
(18) Joseph, December 31, 2008 3:49 PM
Please provide Facebook links
We need to utilize every tool at our disposal to broadcast our message. Please build in a "post to facebook profile" link here.
(17) Ploni Almoni, December 29, 2008 5:05 PM
next shoe to fall???
I think that shoe has fallen, or havent you heard, "the racist state of Israel is an Apartheid " that is coming from the left "progressives" and that seems like open hostility to me. If you think the Democrats are bad for the Jewish state you should have seen what the republicans have done in the last 8 years. War in the neighborhood is awful for everyone and creates MORE anti-Israel sentiment which is obviously what is blocking any kind of progress towards peace.
(16) Cloud, December 29, 2008 7:39 AM
It will get worse with Democrats in charge
Open hostility to isreal is the next shoe to fall from the left.
(15) jacek, December 29, 2008 1:27 AM
terror in the name of islam
90% of the media are terrorized and never use the term islam in connection to terror despite the fact that muslims who perpetrate are never ashamed of the main reason for it-islam,koran,allah etc.
(14) Alejandro, December 28, 2008 9:38 PM
The discredited New York Times
How anyone with any sense of balance and fairness could read that discredited rag is beyond me. The NY Times is slanted, hypocritical,and a sell-out to the far left and anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, anti-America crowd. I do not mean to imply that the NYT or any other newspaper should be blindly pro-Israel, for that matter. However, any newspaper worth its salt (are there any left, by the way?) should objectively and exhaustively report all sides of the story: let the intelliget reader come to his/her own conclusion. Perhaps the NYT could be distributed free of charge to owners of pet birds (give 'em something to aim at in their contemplative moments) or to gardeners to use as mulch. Now THAT would be great NYT service!
(13) Gerd Kaluski, December 28, 2008 5:20 PM
NYT failure to understand morality.
The New York Times continues to amaze me in their misplaced editorial policy of being apologists for Terrorists. Their current policy harkens back to this newpaper's downplaying of the persecution of Jews in Hitler's Germany in the days leading up to WW II. At that time, the Times under reported Nazi atrocities against it's Jewish population, emphasing that this was a temporary abberation of Hitlers government while concentrating on improving living conditions and providing jobs for the Germans. The NY Times did not have a clear concept of morality then and certainly still has no clue of the concept of right and wrong.
(12) Anonymous, December 28, 2008 5:06 PM
The NY Times should be embarrassed
But they probably aren't. Not "All the news that's fit to print," but, "All the news that fits, they print."
(11) ruth housman, December 28, 2008 4:31 PM
how we use and abuse, language
If an act of terror is committed, I would say that a report that does not call this terorism is in error. Whoever performs such acts, involving the killing of innocent people, is a terrorist. If people are afraid of incurring terror by using the correct word for acts of horror, then there's something deeply wrong about this. There is no good euphemism for such acts.
(10) Anonymous, December 28, 2008 2:38 PM
NAZIS.....
NAZIS ALSO HAD HOSPITALS....
SHAME ON YOU COWARDS!!!!!
(9) Donnie Perry, December 28, 2008 2:04 PM
I agree 100%. No doubt the Times backs the terrorists. Regards Donnie Perry
(8) Herb Michelson, December 28, 2008 12:51 PM
Absolutely!
Complicity is a many faceted condition but I agree very strongly that any news media's to refrain from saying it "like it is." particulalry when human life and blood are concerned is not only complicit in the acts of terrorism, but are guilty of enabling terrorists to do what they do. Furthermore, I see this careful avoidance of using he appropriate word: Terrorism as a clear illustration of rantionalized cowardice which in the end adds up to making way for more of the same! The Times can be sickingly "careful" and certainly not what a newspaper of record should be!
(7) Ron B, December 28, 2008 12:20 PM
NYT anti-Israel
It has been demonstrated for many years that the NYT is anti-Israel and an apologist for terrorism. The coverage in that paper has been so slanted and the Times is unapologetic. A great example is the Mohammed al-Dura story, where in the early days of the intifada, a 12 year old boy was supposedly killed by Israeli soldiers. The NYT covered the story extensively heaping blame on Israel. When the story was later found to be false and fabricated by the French tv crew that filmed the supposed incident during a trial for libel, the NYT refused to cover the story. There have been many other such incidents throughout the last decade. One can only conclude that the Times has a political agenda which includes dishonest reporting when it comes to Israel.
(6) A. Cummins, December 28, 2008 11:55 AM
Afraid of Consequences of truthful reporting
I believe that the NY Times as well as other newspapers throughout the world are genuinely afraid of honest reporting about Arab terrorism because of a collective fear of reaction from the world of Islam. One never sees any articles critical of the Islamic tenets or the imams that are behind these attacks. The Koran seems to be, if not accepted, respected as Gospel at the same time that the Torah is debunked. The regimes in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are always described as "moderate". Alternatively, there may be other forces at work, that is, in the spirit of political correctness that exists in liberal circles today, one man's terrorist is another man's righteous hero. Therefore, the disgusting and atrocious attacks on Jews at Chabad in Mumbai can also be viewed in the light of "Islamic patriotism". Sad, indeed.
(5) aliza, December 28, 2008 11:49 AM
great journalists
The great journalists of the past are not the ones who were "namby pamby" - they were not afraid to say it as it is, without fear of political correctedness. Thank G-d Nixon was 30 years ago. If Richard Nixon was president today, Woodward and Bernstein would be reporting on how Nixon is oppressed and just trying to protect himself against the evil Democrats who are out to get him. No one felt they needed to give equal time to the Nazis. Where's Edward R. Murrow when you need him?
(4) Anonymous, December 28, 2008 10:27 AM
Biased, one-sided reporting is not true journalism
Later in his essay, Mr. Hoyt takes up the issue of Hamas, the Sunni group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and which has launched scores of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians (targeting, among other things, buses, hotels, supermarkets and restaurants) and has fired hundreds of missiles at Israeli cities and town. The group that exults in the murder and maiming of innocent men, women and children, that trains its young to feel the same way, that denies the Holocaust and expresses confidence that, as one of its leaders put it in a Hamas newspaper, "the Holocaust is still to come upon the Jews." Mr. Hoyt explains that The Times chooses to not label Hamas a terrorist organization "though it sponsors acts of terror against Israel." This is extremely biased reporting. There are always two sides to every story. Mr. Hoyt, let us hear the other side from you.
(3) SarahRachel, December 28, 2008 9:23 AM
They CANT use "Terrorist:"
If they begin to use the word "Terrorist" which is a true word for what these animals are, then that will lead to having to use even MORE truth, which would be the word "Muslim" in front of the word "terrorist" as in "Muslim terrorists". Can't have THAT, now can we! That would be insulting, that wouldn't be politically correct! I will be laughing at these "journalists" one day when theyb are being forced to pray five times a day with their rear ends up in the air, or die. It is their own false sense of political correctness that is enabling the Muslim stealth jihad to enter and become successful in America today, as it has already become in Europe and Britain.
(2) Anonymous, December 28, 2008 9:18 AM
thank you
Thank you, Rabbi Avi Shafran, for making this very important point. May you also someday be blessed with the courage to see that we have terrorists in our midst that need to be recognized for what they actually are. Does all a molester who routinely attacks innocents have to do to achieve respectability is garner the support of organizations and display public acts of altruism? The answer is No. A molester is a terrorist even if he is in a respected place of authority in our community. And all those who choose to support such a terrorist, by covering up his heinous crimes on innocent children, and thereby empowering the molester, are accessories to terrorism. Those who are too weak-kneed to call this evil what it is, are, in their own way, complicit in the same, for enabling this form of terrorism to continue. If we face up to dealing bravely with this form of terrorism in our midst, we may then merit to be protected from the other equally horrific forms of terrorism.
(1) David Lawrence, December 28, 2008 8:50 AM
Rabbi Shafram is correct, terrorists should be called terrorists
If you can't name evil you can't celebrate good and defy evil. Terorists are terrorists. If you are afraid to name them, how can you fight them? Throughout history warriors have tried to avoid killing innocent civilians. It's only the terrorists who are lowly enough to murder them, to strap their own children to dynamite. What's in a name? Everything. To fail to define your enemy is a cowardly act that allows him to defeat you and your loved ones. This is not a time for corny pacifism and flower child language. In fact, calling a terrorist a terrorist is far too flattering a term. We should take a page out of the Koran's denunciation of Jews and stick it back on him--a pig.