moonbattery.gif


« CBS/Infinity Throws a Block for Islamic Terror | Main | Leftists Play the Gay Card Against John Roberts »

July 19, 2005

CBC Jumps on the "No Such Thing As Terrorism" Bandwagon

Following in the less than noble footsteps of their fellow fifth-column dhimmis at Reuters and the BBC, Canada's taxpayer-financed CBC distributed the following memo to their staff regarding use of the word "terrorism":

"Terrorist" and "terrorism": Exercise extreme caution before using either word.
Avoid labelling any specific bombing or other assault as a "terrorist act" unless it's attributed (in a TV or Radio clip, or in a direct quote on the Web). For instance, we should refer to the deadly blast at that nightclub in Bali in October 2002 as an "attack," not as a "terrorist attack." The same applies to the Madrid train attacks in March 2004, the London bombings in July 2005 and the attacks against the United States in 2001, which the CBC prefers to call "the Sept. 11 attacks" or some similar expression. (The BBC, Reuters and many others follow similar policies.)

Imagine the luck we would have had in World War II if the media had been rooting for the Germans to the extent that reporters were discouraged from using words like "Nazi" and "fascist."

Via CBC Watch.

Posted by Van Helsing at July 19, 2005 07:40 PM

Comments

It is bloody appalling.
Nice language - avoid extremes.
Why do they refer to those poor Jewish settlers as "extremists".

Posted by: Felis at July 19, 2005 07:59 PM

OK ...

So if some rag-head asswipe hijacks a flight from Manitoba to Ottawa and crashed it into SkyDome during a Blue Jays game, we get to say it wasn't "terrorist"?

These Canadians had better get with the program and start acting like allies before we start treating them as enemies.

RWR

Posted by: RightWingRocker at July 20, 2005 04:18 AM

rag-head asswipe..........

Is that you, Archie Bunker?

Posted by: Rob B. at July 20, 2005 08:38 AM

If it makes you feel better, every time you hear a loud bang, you can run through your neighborhood holding your head screaming "terrorists!!!".

I think the intent here is to not allow "terrorist" to become so over-used that we call every violent crime an "act of terrorism" before it is known to be one. To be controlled by fear, we can't allow desensitization to terror, now can we?

Posted by: Rob B. at July 20, 2005 08:44 AM

Imagine the luck we would have had in World War II if the media had been rooting for the Germans to the extent that reporters were discouraged from using words like "Nazi" and "fascist."

The contemporary Left-Wing Media can't even bring themselves to call those who shoot at American soldiers "the enemy."

Posted by: V the K at July 20, 2005 08:55 AM

Meanwhile, the gay-baiting liberal moonbats at DailyKos are insinuating that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts's son should be investigated to see if he's gay.

When Roberts thanked his family, he mentioned his son, Jack...Roberts’ wife’s face fell. It was like a poker tell. I think we should research Jack.

by mayan on Tue Jul 19th, 2005 at 13:13:01 PDT

...

He’s probably gay (2.50 / 2)
Of course, this is how ridiculous rumors get started, but extreme conservatives seem to have a lot of homosexual children...

by Geotpf on Tue Jul 19th, 2005 at 13:19:08 PDT

The kid is four years old.

LGF has the story

Posted by: V the K at July 20, 2005 01:14 PM

"I think the intent here is to not allow "terrorist" to become so over-used that we call every violent crime an "act of terrorism" before it is known to be one." - Rob B.

A valid point. However, when the BBC went back and edited the word "terrorist" out of their reporting about the London terrorist attacks, what end did that serve? That was a terrorist attack, by terrorists, and exhorted by terrorists. I agree that the MSM shouldn't label a double homicide in Minneapolis as a terrorist incident, but can't we call a spade a spade?

What if in 50 years, Senators and Congressmen are calling each other "terrorists" on the Senate floor the same way they're using Nazi now? Just because they disagree on some policy points? I can see the headlines - "Wal-Mart Terrorizes Local Community with Low Prices." pffft...

And you KNOW that's going to happen regardless...

Posted by: Josh at July 20, 2005 01:42 PM

Rob B said: "I think the intent here is to not allow "terrorist" to become so over-used that we call every violent crime an "act of terrorism" before it is known to be one."

No. No. No. So, by this reasoning, if everyone is changing the word "terrorist" to "insurgent" and the phrase "terrorist attack" to simply "attack" then how are we to know when an "attack" is terrorism? Don't hold your breath waiting for it to be announced by TV or Radio as "terrorism". And they're using the BBC and Reuters as models? hahaha.

It's obvious what terrorism means. It's in the dictionary. And it should be applied where proper, regardless of what TV or Radio says. Personally, I don't need to take my cue from them.

Posted by: Oyster at July 20, 2005 02:27 PM