A SmartHER Take: Why You Won't Hear The Word "Terrorist" In Today's News

Words matter, particularly for journalists, where a simple word choice or missing context can change the meaning of a story for the audience.
We have a good example of this today: A mysterious attack on an Iranian consulate in Syria, with many news reports not mentioning the terrorist designations belonging to the groups involved.
Why? Jenna provides one reason in this quick SmartHER Take.
Thoughts? [e-mail]

[@mindelamossman2129]

Love how you share these important behind the scenes judgements and why it matters!!

[@dianareinhardt3815]

Thank you for taking the time to point out these critical distinctions. When the AP replaces terrorist with militant, it makes them seem equal to any type of military group instead of what they are... terrorist groups who exercise no human rights and use fear, death etc...to try and control others. Words matter and we need to let our government and media/news sources know that we are listening and hold them accountable to speak the truth and not "soften" a terrorist's actions

[@bluehose95]

Thank you so much for the care and thought you give to context and clarity in your news delivery. You're the best!

[@chorechannel]

Thank you for the context!

[@meredithholmes6315]

Agree! Words matter!

[@edith1798]

I agree. Thank you.

[@silversax5697]

Terrorist, freedom fighters, rebels, police action, it all depends on optics and what the agenda that the local government/ media wants to convey.

[@VTPSTTU]

Thank you very much for this video.
First, I appreciate your explaining how you address the issue. Whether I agree with you on a definition, knowing how you will handle this kind of reporting helps me to understand what I'm hearing from you because I now understand the choices that you've made in presenting the news. Nobody has to agree with you on any aspect of this topic in order to benefit from knowing how you will use the term in your reports. Once we know how you are using the term, we can adjust our interpretation of what you've told us accordingly. That means that we get a clearer picture of what you are trying to communicate. Again, thank you for that.
For myself, a terrorist is someone who tries to achieve political ends through physical force aimed primarily at non-combatants. A terrorist is trying to win something through "terror" that he or she couldn't win through political means or regular warfare. A group that wants the government to ban three-prong widgets may decide that ninety-five percent of the population will never oppose three-prong widgets enough to want a government ban on them. Rather than continue to make the case through non-forceful means and be ignored, these domestic terrorists may do something to cause harm to regular people. They tell themselves that regular people may not care about three-prong widgets but will tire of damaged property, inconveniences, or destroyed lives and will ask the government to ban three-prong widgets just to appease the anti-three-prong-widget terrorists. They are banking on people deciding to appease them rather than supporting serious government crackdown on their terroristic activities. Likewise, they may want to gain territory that they can't gain through normal political means, so they engage in violence against non-combatants in order to terrorize those people into asking their government to appease the terrorists.
I understand that non-combatants will be hurt or killed in any conflict that turns into combat of any kind. When nations go to war, they will attack infrastructure that helps to support the enemy's war effort. Many of the people around that infrastructure will be non-combatants, and many of them will be hurt or killed. That doesn't make the military personnel who perform those duties terrorists. In some cases, the collateral damage both in terms of property damage and human loss will pressure a government to surrender, but again, the people engaged in these acts are trying to fight a war according to the rules of war.
I also understand that the lines can be a bit blurred in civil wars.
The War of 1861 is called the American Civil War, but this war wasn't really a civil war. The Confederacy had formed a separate nation. That nation had a federal system of government where the people were under the power of federal laws, state laws, and local laws. That nation built a national military to fight the national military of the Union government which was also a federal system of government. While the Union armies deliberately harmed civilians as they invaded, they were doing this harm as part of destroying the infrastructure that the Confederate government needed in order to support the armies in the field.
In North America, the "Bloody Kansas" situation in the 1850's was much more of a civil war. People on each side of the slavery issue would attack lonely farms and kill entire families if they believed that the people at that farm were going to vote the other way on the question of slavery in Kansas. Those actions on both sides were despicable, and I'm happy to think that those who carried out those actions are now burning in Hell. On the other hand, even that wasn't entirely about achieving ends through terror. While the killers were happy to think that they were driving political opponents to flee the territory in fear, the primary objective was to reduce the number of voters who would vote the other way on the question of slavery.
I guess there might be people who would disagree about whether law enforcement members are non-combatants. While members of law enforcement are authorized by the government to use force, the constraints on that use of force are very different from the constraints on the military. Some would say that attacking a police station or even a single police officer is a legitimate use of force in carrying out a war against the other side. Others would see attacking a member of law enforcement as a terrorist act meant to make some change simply by putting fear or disturbance into the lives of regular people who aren't helping to advance the terrorists' goals.
The lines may also be blurry when organized crime of any kind is involved. When the old-fashioned extortion rackets burned a business to scare others into paying "protection" money, they were engaging in a form of terrorism. Because the goals of organized crime were not overtly political, we tended not to think of these acts as terrorism. Personally, I think they qualify as terrorism. I'm not aware of good citizens ever rising up and using force against organized crime. Personally, I would have no moral qualms with someone who killed a member of organized crime who was engaged in this kind of crime or terrorism against a community. That the attack on the community is part of an organized campaign to profit through intimidation makes what these criminals do a kind of act of war. They are not just criminals, but also domestic enemies. If a citizen kills one of them, to Hell with the criminal. Modern organized crime is often more associated with drug gangs, but the principle is the same. To the extent that drug gangs are using force and intimidation to operate against regular citizens and legitimate government, they are domestic enemies and terrorists.
Anyone who deliberately creates a problem for others to try to force appeasement on an issue is also a terrorist. No matter how much someone may not like a stand that a church takes on an issue, if that person goes into the church and interrupts the service, that person is acting as a terrorist. That action is not acceptable. Protesting outside a business is acceptable within what is legally allowed, but going into the business to interrupt people's regular work lives is a form of terrorism. Because these actions don't involve destruction of property or injury to people, the reasonable force used against these terrorists is less, but they are still terrorists, not fellow citizens engaging in legitimate discussion of important issues. Just because the church won't take a stand against three-prong widgets does not mean that anyone has a right to disrupt services. Just because a company makes a tool that is necessary to make three-prong widgets does not mean that anyone has a right to disrupt that business.
We have a right to voice opinions. We do not have a right to disturb someone else's peace in order to voice our opinions. People must be given a chance to ignore voices that they think are wrong or stupid.

[@wylinout2257]

I don't care how about politically correct agendas of the AP.
AP has spread their own propaganda themselves

[@catmondo8318]

"A DumbHer Take" is a better title for this bs.

[@jlynschill]

#SmartHerNews
#FueledByFacts
#QuickConciseNonpartisan
#CuriosityOverCommentary