The language of war

There is an interesting article by the Globe and Mail's Standards Editor in today's paper, discussing the rationale behind some of the language used by newspapers in their reporting of the Israel-Hamas war. (There is also a thoughtful article in The Conversation along the same lines.)

When emotions run high, language matters. When and whether to use the word "terrorist", either nakedly or in quotes is a big one. It is one thing to quote a politician using the word, or in attribution, but quite another thing to use word in general factual reporting (more latitude is allowable in opinion pieces, although I do wonder whether most readers are aware which articles are opinion pieces and which are not). 

It is a fine line to walk. Some readers very close to the issue may see the word "terrorist" in quotes and feel that this is hurtful, and an attempt to play down the brutality of the attacks to make a political point. Others will see its use in any capacity (in preference to less emotive vocabulary) as politically motivated. 

The paper's style guide suggests using phrases like "which Canada considers a terrorist organization", or "which is committed to the destruction of Israel", in an attempt to distance itself from overly emotive words and phrases, and to stick to hard facts. Other media outlets have different guidelines. This is not just being mealy-mouthed; it is an attempt to be objective and not to lead readers to jump to political conclusions. It is not an easy path.

"Killing", "attack" and "death" instead of "atrocity", "slaughter" or "genocide". The language of journalism may seem disingenuous, even devious, but you can see why it tries to avoid some of the more stirring, contentious or loaded phrasing. 

As the BBC's guidelines state, journalism's job is to "explain precisely what is happening 'on the ground' so our audiences can make their own judgement". I think most reputable media outlets do a pretty good job of that. Of course, what you consider to be "reputable" is a loaded political opinion in the first place...