|
It’s tough to be an unbiased journalist. A New York Times article begins “The fighter was wearing slippers…” These writers are way better than I could ever be. I’d begin the article with “The terrorist was wearing slippers…”
I know what you’re thinking, “Mark, terrorist is just such a loaded word. One must be neutral in one’s reporting.” So I checked the online thesaurus for another word for terrorist. How about “The alarmist was wearing slippers…” That doesn’t seem to do it. My favorite would be “The goon was wearing slippers…” but that’s probably too loaded as well. The other possibilities were bomber, rebel, revolutionary, subversive, or thug. I don’t see “fighter” anywhere in this list. So how does one come up with a value neutral term for a Hamas employee? Let’s look at Hamas. The Hamas charter calls explicitly for the destruction of Israel. That means killing a lot of Jews. That’s just fine with their supporters. A Danish pro-Palestinian march bore placards declaring "We would love to kill all Jews worldwide, all Jews shall be killed." In Florida members of a pro-Palestinian march chanted “bring back the ovens!” In the years since they acquired control of the Gaza, Hamas has launched thousands and thousands and thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel. If they blow up a house, a school, a hospital, a day care, it’s all good because adding to the level of terror is what it’s all about. An organization that seeks to achieve its aims through terror is a terrorist organization and anyone who works for Hamas is therefore a terrorist. Just like the New York Times is a journalism organization (so called) and those who work there are journalists. Yet for some reason the Times thinks calling a terrorist a terrorist is not neutral. So they choose “fighter.” Unlike the universally negative connotations that go with terrorist, being a fighter is down right noble. Some of the fighter synonyms include champion, combatant, competitor, GI, and gladiator. All of the sudden my goons and thugs become their champions and gladiators. Where is the neutrality? More importantly, where is the objectivity? The Times through their reporting isn’t much different than the marching thugs in Demark or Florida. Through their writing it’s clear they support Hamas, and they have the power to sway public opinion against Israel. Sure they don’t call for killing the Jews, but if Hamas wins, what would be the difference?
|
