Many people—especially those who hate the CBC—were up in arms when they learned the broadcaster had a rule against calling the 9/11 attackers in the U.S. “terrorists.”
That stance against using that word comes from widespread understanding in the world of journalism—one which I have been governed by during my over two decades of writing for the Winnipeg Free Press and other media outlets.
The rule is basically this: No adjectives.
For those who have forgotten their high school grammar, an adjective is something that modifies a noun. (A person, place or thing.)
Adjectives like: An angry man. A beautiful woman. A gorgeous garden. A terrifying storm.
The man, woman, garden and storm may be all those things. But by using adjectives that come from me and not from some other source, I put myself and my opinion, as a journalist, into the story—which I must never, ever do.
By so doing, I am inserting what I think into a story. It may not be what you think of the man, woman, garden or storm. And it can open me to criticism about bias in my reporting.
Now, if someone says the man was angry, or the woman was beautiful, the garden gorgeous or the storm terrible, I can quote them or refer to them. That is perfectly fine. But without that, I can’t describe those people or places on the basis of my own judgement, feelings and opinion—even if it is obvious to a reader that those things are true.
Similarly, when it comes to the 9/11 attacks, it is usual for journalists to quote someone saying the attackers were terrorists—not just to throw that word in there without a source.
In making the decision—since reversed—the CBC stands with other media outlets around the world like the BBC, Associated Press and Reuters. All treat the words “terrorist/terrorism” as loaded terms and generally avoid applying them on their own.
As CBC editor-in-chief Brodie Fenlon put it, the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” are “so loaded with meaning, politics and emotion that they can end up being impediments to our journalism.”
As a result, attribution—only quoting someone calling acts those things—helps maintain journalistic neutrality.
Now, if a government official says a group is terrorist—they can be quoted saying that. Similarly, if someone disagrees, they can be quoted saying that, too. (A reminder of the old axiom that “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.”)
The AP, and now the CBC, have changed their rule with regards to 9/11 since that attack is now widely acknowledged as terrorism. The BBC and Reuters have not.
Of course, this rule gets all media outlets into trouble. This is especially true over the Middle East, with many Jews calling Hamas a “terrorist” organization and are upset when some media won’t do the same. Then again, some people in Palestine view Israeli settlers as terrorists, and even the Israeli government as a whole. But the media won’t do it for them, either.
(This rule doesn't apply as strictly to column writing. But even there, if I use an adjective, I better be sure of it and ready to defend it. There will always be readers who are willing to take me to task.)
Some say this leads to bland reporting. And maybe they are right. But it also prevents bias from creeping in. And one day those same critics may be glad when a reporter writes "bland" just-the-facts story about an issue, idea or person they care deeply about, but which has done something negative that needs to be reported.
As for the 9/11 debate, I think the CBC committed an own-goal by not modifying its stance. But it was committed to doing the right thing by the people and events it covers, even if it could have done a better job of explaining it—especially now, when so many people distrust the media.
In the end, the rule against adjectives, or at least their careful use, is a good and principled one. It ensures people get the best and most factual journalism that protects everyone by ensuring the story is told the way it should be told—without embellishment by a reporter. Like me.
And that is my bland and adjective-free view of the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment