“TERRORISM” IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
ANGLO AMERICA, 12 Apr 2010
The New York Times’ informs us that the words “terrorism” and “terrorist” have no clear, simple, universally agreed upon meaning. They are used as political weapons. When there’s violence that we disapprove of, we call it “terrorism.” When we do approve of the violence, we find a nicer word to describe it.
Wow! For thoughtful progressives, that’s about as startling as an article informing us that the sun rises in the east, or that grass is green.
What is startling is to see this obvious fact openly admitted on page one of the Times’ News of the Week in Review section, one of the most sacred sites of America’s centrist mass media. The author, Scott Shane, is one of the Times’ top journalists on the “terrorism” beat.
He does offer a rough definition: “Terrorism has come to be applied more commonly to the violent tactics of nonstate groups, often in a campaign of repeated attacks. The targets are often chosen for symbolic reasons (the World Trade Center, the Pentagon), and the victims usually include civilians. The acts of terror seek to influence an audience, ostensibly in service of a political goal.”
Ironically, though, when I highlighted the word “terrorism” in the article, the Times website gave me a convenient little icon to click on to get this definition: “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”
Nothing there about “nonstate groups.” By the Times’ own definition, if a government is perpetrating violence in violation of international law, it’s terrorism. Which only goes to show that Shane is right: No one can say for sure what counts as “terrorism.” It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
Is it possible, then, to say that the United States government could commit or support “terrorism”? Shane will not go that far, at least not directly. Yet he concludes by suggesting that Ronald Reagan was “naïve” when he denied that the U.S.-backed contras in Nicaragua and jihadi “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan were terrorists.
With those words, Shane comes surprisingly close to questioning, if not breaking, the fundamental rule of America’s mass media: Whatever those slippery words “terrorism” and “terrorist” may mean, they must never be applied to violence committed or paid for by the U.S. government.
On the contrary, the rule says, the mass media must use those words to remind us that there are two very different kinds of violence, the good and the bad. As long as we believe in that difference, and assume that our own government’s violence is the good kind, we can set our consciences at rest about the violence paid for by our tax dollars.
Shane’s article opens the door, just a crack, to calling the rule into question. Yet in his news articles, he himself has been using the words “terrorism” and “terrorist” as if they had specific, concrete definitions — the very illusion that his latest piece tries to unmask.
For example, a recent article titled “Experts Urge Keeping Two Options for Terror Trials,” co-written by Shane, suggests that that the government would “hamstring itself by outlawing civilian terrorism trials” and thus “create major obstacles to swift punishment of terrorism suspects.”
The article assumes that we all know who and what we’re talking about here: “Terrorism” is violence done against the U.S. or its interests. Virtually all articles in the mass media that use the words “terrorism” and “terrorist” assume the same.
How long will it be until the Times stops using these slippery words in its news articles as if they had clearly defined meaning? How long until the Times, or some equally influential source, comes out and says that Reagan was not merely “naïve” but outright lying when he denied that the U.S. supports “terrorism”?
And how much longer will it be until the Times, or some equally influential source, says that not merely presidents past, but also the current inhabitant of the White House, can be guilty of the same verbal deception?
Don’t hold your breath. Nevertheless, it’s encouraging to seee the Times taking a step in the right direction, no matter how small it may be.
______________________
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. His Alternet blog focuses mainly on issues of U.S. national (in)security. Ira writes frequently for progressive websites, especially on Israel, Palestine, and the U.S. These columns are collected at http://chernus.wordpress.com. His personal website is http://spot.colorado.edu/~chernus.
GO TO ORIGINAL – ALTERNET
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.