It’s not quite in the category of Dewey Defeats Truman, but most newspapers headlines—particularly in early editions—missed the Hamas Party’s victory over the Fatah Party in the Palestinian elections. Through most of the night, exit polls showed Hamas surging but Fatah holding a plurality. Only after 1 a.m. did the wires change and report of the Hamas win.
Its victory raises some interesting questions about terminology and how the media defines groups.
The United States and many western nations have condemned Hamas as having ties to terrorism, and that position hasn’t changed. The Associated Press and other wire services typically call Hamas a “militant” organization. Sometimes they call it “radical.”
This debate over terminology is familiar ground in the Middle East. One person’s insurgent is another one’s militant is another one’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.
That’s why words matter. It’s not to say the truth is whatever you want it to be or can call it. A duck is not a chicken. But where you are coming from and where you are going quite often changes the view of what you are looking at.
Your host is Ken Otterbourg, the managing editor at the Winston-Salem Journal. It's a forum to discuss the media, from
When you’re writing stories such as this do you think of readers in terms of lowest common denominator (knows nothing about the subject), middle of the road (has a passing familiarity with the subject) or well informed (knows quite a bit about the subject)? Does that influence the terminology you use?
In the example you’re using (Hamas) would it be safest to introduce them in the first paragraph or two as “Hamas, a group considered by many Western governments to have ties to terrorism yet considered by many Palestinians to be freedom fighters”? It seems unwieldy but it also seems to be the only way to give an overview of the situation that even a person with no knowledge of the situation in the Middle East could understand.
Good question.
There’s an old adage that says newspapers should be written at an eighth-grade reading level. Not entirely true, but you get the point. Same thing in terms of content.
In the best newspaper stories, information gets parceled out in doses that readers can digest and make sense of. I’m not a huge fan of big clauses because I think they stop readers. That said, I would hope that in any story we run about Hamas the information you’re referring to would be included in language that is easy to understand and allows readers to learn what the major issues are.
What do you call “the destruction of Israel’....Mr. opened minded........idiot
Please excuse my previous name calling...uncalled for
But… someone gets on a bus and blows up your wife, daughter, son, grandmother...etc....and you want to debate what to call them.....really!!!!!!
We are SOOOOO removed from the reality of living in terror we have the luxury of debating the defitions....it is the same thing as the war on terror...so many are sooooo removed from what it would be like to have planes fly into buildings here at home
Let’s all pray it never happens
OK. Thanks for the self-policing. Apology accepted.
You are correct that we are mostly removed from terrorism, particularly as a day-to-day concern. I know it’s out there, but I don’t wake up worrying about it.
What I was trying to get at is that our definition of a group is largely determined by whether we agree with their means and their end. This is a bit of a stretch, but imagine you are a proud citizen of England at the time of the Boston Tea Party. Would you be inclined to call the dumpers 1)vandals; 2)terrorists; 3)freedom fighters?
It’s best when the media leaves the labeling to others and tries to show and tell by example.
This is not to say I support Hamas, its positions, or the use of violence as a political tool, just that the world is a complicated place filled with a wide range of viewpoints.
Thanks for your comments.
Ok...engaged. Throwing tea overboard may call for debate...blowing the heads off little children over and over again and promising to do it again DOES NOT!
Please.....! One of the problems we have now days is nothing is REALLY right or wrong....but it is! I don’t care what your means or goal is...if you want to fight OK, but terrorism is terrorism
If Hanes Mall blew up today ...say 200/400/600 dead you think that would be worthy of debate as to what to call the criminals? What if it happened tommorrow...say once a week for the next ten years?
Wanna still debate what to call them?
You and I both know the answer...it is just we are so removed we enjoy the luxury of being able to debate.
Mr. Leary, there are plenty of people in the world that say the United States commits terrorism on a regular basis. Do you remember the projects we financed in Nicaragua? Do you think terrorism would be a good way to describe what happened there (and if not, what would be a better way)?
I don’t think we in this country are in a good place to talk about standards of right and wrong.
___________
Joe Murphy
Senior Online Content Producer
JournalNow.com
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.