Saturday, April 29, 2006

The Politically Correct BBC: Example No 94

On News 24 just now the newsreader Maxine Mawhinney said: " an attack by Islamist, sorry, milititants..." I've heard before that BBC producers have been instructed to avoid using the term 'terrorist' and must use the less pejorative word 'militant' instead. Now we seem to have the proof.


Croydonian said...

Absolutely sickening. I suppose it is just as well that union militants are pretty thin on the ground these days, otherwise the BBC could refer to 'militants' who wave placards and use megaphones, and 'militants' who are homicide bombers.

Anonymous said...

This is a long-standing tradition at the BBC. Nothing new here. May sound a bit PC, but when you listen to the way 'terrorist' is used by everyone from the Iranian Govt to Fox News, the BBC approach starts to sound quite refreshing.

Anonymous said...

Has it occured to you to ask whether they were actually 'militants' or 'terrorists'? They're different words with different meaings (as it happens 'terrorist' is now so poorly defined I don't think the word should be used at all.)

Or do you just think all Muslims must de terrorists my definition? ;)

Iain Dale said...

anonymous, what a purile point. No of course I don't think all muslims are terrorists. And nor did you think I did.

Anonymous said...

A terrorist is someone who causes terror, such as terror resulting from bomb explosions. A militant is someone who actively pursues political objectives but without causing terror.
The muslims who demonstrated their malevolance towards the westerm world outside the Danish Embassy were militants: those who blow themselves to pieces in attempts to kill others in Israel are terrorists.


Anonymous said...


You make an interesting distinction between militant and terrorist. But I'd suggest that "someone who actively pursues political objectives but without causing terror" is an activist.

A terrorist, on the other hand, is someone who attempts to use terror to impose their will. Such tactics include both bombs etc AND threats of violence. People who THREATEN violence are also terrorists, by definition. Unless you wish to call such people "intimidationists".

Either way, it's hard for me to see how the BBC et al can justify calling those who shoot their co-religionists, kidnap and behead others, blow themselves up in order indiscriminately to murder others etc etc, anything but terrorists.

What irks me is that I have to pay for the BBC's treacherous lies.