It’s official—the Left has officially made it clear that they are siding with terrorists over innocent victims. Leftist publications, like BBC, who demand their reporters sanitize terms that describe acts of terror, are doing their readers a disservice. Instead of telling them the truth about horrifics acts of terror against innocent citizens, they are attempting to sugar-coat, or downplay the the truth about why terrorists are maming and killing people becasue of a radical ideology.
According to the Daily Mail – Reporters will be told to avoid using the word to describe any terror attack unless they are quoting someone else.
Instead, they will refer to terror attacks by naming specific details, such as the location and the method of slaughter used.
The controversial edict means that the BBC will no longer use the phrase ‘terror attack’ to describe the massacres at London Bridge or Manchester Arena, as the corporation did when the atrocities occurred.
Reporters would describe them as the London Bridge van attack or the Manchester Arena bomb attack instead.
But yesterday, MPs and experts accused the broadcaster of ‘failing in its public service duty’.
David Green, a former Home Office adviser and chief executive of the think tank Civitas, said: ‘If they don’t want to use that [the word terror] then they’re failing in their public service duty which is to be clear and accurate.
‘I think there is a common usage, which has some recognition in law, which if you use attempted killing or injury to a political objective, then that’s terrorism.
‘It would be misleading not to say that these are terrorist episodes if they are attempts to advance a political or ideological cause through violence.
Guidelines tell staff: ‘Terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones.’ Presenters use the words ‘militant’ or ‘jihadists’ as substitutes.
The new ruling is likely to anger critics who objected to the way the BBC covered the New Zealand terror attack earlier this year. It appeared to avoid using the phrase terror attack by referring to it as the ‘Christchurch shooting’.
At the time, BBC News editorial director Kamal Ahmed defended the move, saying there is ‘no agreed definition of what a terrorist is’. However, he said there was no ban on any expression.
Do you agree that banning reporters from using the term “terror attacks’ is pure insanity?