The CBC, hoist on its own petard
I've written about the BBC's fear -- better to call it terror -- of using the word "terrorist" to describe those who in fact do terrorize by murder and mayhem.
Well, now we have Canada's public broadcaster, the CBC, doing the same or worse, issuing an order to its staff to avoid the word at all cost, unless the writer is attributing to a direct quote from another source where the word was used. Hence, this linguistic madness continues. A number of editorials and commentators have noted the stupidity or the hypocracy of this ridiculous policy. But I want to tell you why the CBC, and Reuter, and the BBC, and other western media are now "hoisted on their own petard". That is to say these institutions are caught in their a trap of their own making.
Initially, there was one motivation for not describing a terrorist attack honestly and precisely, as what it actually was, and thus using the word "terrorism". It happened in relation to Palestinians' attacks on Israeli civilians. The Palestinians were not "terrorists", they were "militants", a word suggesting regular military forces, even though they happened to use youngsters as suicide bombers, didn't wear uniforms, were in no way restrained by such inhibitions as the Geneva Convention, and had no compuctions about killing their own on the way to their objectives. This linguistic fiction was the way these media people were attempting to equate Palestinian mass murderers with Israelis defending against such acts of terrorism. They were trying to tell us all that it was all of a piece, that the instigators were no different than the defenders.
Now then, Muslim terrorists are everywhere and terror attacks are happening not only in Western countries, but also in Muslim countries. Today, more than 80 people were killed and hundreds more wounded in Egypt, by suicide and car bombers. No one can be assured of security from this modern evil viciousness. Additionally, Muslim populations are everywhere in large numbers, as a result of the multicultual theology that was adopted far and wide. Trudeau brought bilingualism and multiculturism to Canada. Bilingualism was right for Canada, and good for Canada, but multiculturalism for a country of immigrants is the best way I know to undermine the concept of patriatism to one's nation. (A discussion about effects of multiculturalism is for another time).
Now the CBC not only is intent on distorting the reality of the Israeli/Palestinian war by the misuse of language, it has to adapt language that maintains an image of Islam as peace-loving, which may or may not be true, and to repeat the mantra that the our Muslim neighbours are not associates of terrorism, which may or may not be true. What we do know for a fact is that all the terrorists are Muslims, while obviously granting that not all Muslims are terrorists. Ultimately, the CBC has to continue the linguistic fiction because it still doesn't want to identify the Palestinians as terrorists, and to be consistent, it is forced to abuse language when terrorists hit London or Spanish or Egyptian innocents. Meanwhile, this policy also allows the media bureaucrats to appease Muslims in their midst and elsewhere, to coddle them with the niceties of distorted words.
Finally, let me say that if the word "terrorism" does not describe the indiscriminate murders we've seen in Israeli pizza parlours, London subways, or Egyptian resorts, etc., then it would be time to eliminate this word from the English language and invent another one that the CBC, Reuters, the BBC, and their ilk, will be prepared to use which would not disguisel the truth. But we have no need to do that. For now, I think the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" are understood perfectly well by everyone, and therefore remains a uselful mode for expressing murderous acts and intentions. My suggestion is that whenever we see the CBC and others disguising terrorism with substitute language, we all should simply transpose to the real word, in our minds, or out loud, so that the CBC et. al. can't get away with this nonsense.
Professor Sal
Well, now we have Canada's public broadcaster, the CBC, doing the same or worse, issuing an order to its staff to avoid the word at all cost, unless the writer is attributing to a direct quote from another source where the word was used. Hence, this linguistic madness continues. A number of editorials and commentators have noted the stupidity or the hypocracy of this ridiculous policy. But I want to tell you why the CBC, and Reuter, and the BBC, and other western media are now "hoisted on their own petard". That is to say these institutions are caught in their a trap of their own making.
Initially, there was one motivation for not describing a terrorist attack honestly and precisely, as what it actually was, and thus using the word "terrorism". It happened in relation to Palestinians' attacks on Israeli civilians. The Palestinians were not "terrorists", they were "militants", a word suggesting regular military forces, even though they happened to use youngsters as suicide bombers, didn't wear uniforms, were in no way restrained by such inhibitions as the Geneva Convention, and had no compuctions about killing their own on the way to their objectives. This linguistic fiction was the way these media people were attempting to equate Palestinian mass murderers with Israelis defending against such acts of terrorism. They were trying to tell us all that it was all of a piece, that the instigators were no different than the defenders.
Now then, Muslim terrorists are everywhere and terror attacks are happening not only in Western countries, but also in Muslim countries. Today, more than 80 people were killed and hundreds more wounded in Egypt, by suicide and car bombers. No one can be assured of security from this modern evil viciousness. Additionally, Muslim populations are everywhere in large numbers, as a result of the multicultual theology that was adopted far and wide. Trudeau brought bilingualism and multiculturism to Canada. Bilingualism was right for Canada, and good for Canada, but multiculturalism for a country of immigrants is the best way I know to undermine the concept of patriatism to one's nation. (A discussion about effects of multiculturalism is for another time).
Now the CBC not only is intent on distorting the reality of the Israeli/Palestinian war by the misuse of language, it has to adapt language that maintains an image of Islam as peace-loving, which may or may not be true, and to repeat the mantra that the our Muslim neighbours are not associates of terrorism, which may or may not be true. What we do know for a fact is that all the terrorists are Muslims, while obviously granting that not all Muslims are terrorists. Ultimately, the CBC has to continue the linguistic fiction because it still doesn't want to identify the Palestinians as terrorists, and to be consistent, it is forced to abuse language when terrorists hit London or Spanish or Egyptian innocents. Meanwhile, this policy also allows the media bureaucrats to appease Muslims in their midst and elsewhere, to coddle them with the niceties of distorted words.
Finally, let me say that if the word "terrorism" does not describe the indiscriminate murders we've seen in Israeli pizza parlours, London subways, or Egyptian resorts, etc., then it would be time to eliminate this word from the English language and invent another one that the CBC, Reuters, the BBC, and their ilk, will be prepared to use which would not disguisel the truth. But we have no need to do that. For now, I think the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" are understood perfectly well by everyone, and therefore remains a uselful mode for expressing murderous acts and intentions. My suggestion is that whenever we see the CBC and others disguising terrorism with substitute language, we all should simply transpose to the real word, in our minds, or out loud, so that the CBC et. al. can't get away with this nonsense.
Professor Sal
posted by Professor Sal at 7:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home