Why the BBC doesn't call Hamas militants "terrorists" | Hacker News Reader

Why the BBC doesn't call Hamas militants "terrorists"

bbc.com

45 pointsmonooso49 comments

One thing I've been thinking about is how we use "terrorist" to describe groups rather than tactics. Governments maintain lists of "terror groups" which, as the article mentions, and everyone has a different idea of who belongs in there.

But terrorism is about tactics: indiscriminate killing/maiming of civilians to inspire terror in a population. Lots of groups, including governments, have used these tactics. And they should be called out when they're used, no matter who by. Hamas and Israel have both used terror tactics at points in this war, and they should both be called out for it. But calling one group "terrorists" and the other group "just trying to protect their country" is just pure propaganda.

I'm from the UK and noticed similar labelling in the Troubles. The Provisional IRA were a terrorist group, but when the British Army massacred a load of civilians, they didn't become a terrorist group.

I should note that John Simpson was being interviewed about this article on BBC News last night and said they had the same policy for the IRA during the Troubles, and had the same accusations thrown at them by politicians then as they are now.

Interesting, I'll have to give that a listen!

I was trying to find a link to it earlier on, but the programme it was on (The Context) doesn't seem to be available on iPlayer, unfortunately.

> And they should be called out when they're used, no matter who by.

I think you're unwittingly proving BBC's point. An objective journalist reports the facts, which means things like who did what to who.

"Calling out" is not compatible with presenting an objective description of the facts. It's the opposite. It's communicating your personal conclusion and trying to attack something you made it your personal target because you disagree in terms of morality.

That's not their responsibility. Their role is not to sneak their personal opinion alongside the objective facts. It's not their role in clear-cut, obvious examples such as a terrorist attack, and it's still not their role in more nuanced topics.

If the reader is able to piece together their own ideas and opinions, why should that be spoon-fed to them?

When I say "calling out" I'm referring to labelling acts as terrorist acts. I probably could have used better wording.

But this argument is all about trying to provide an objective description of the facts. I agree with the BBC here - calling a group a "terrorist group" is an editorial choice, even if we do have government list of terrorist groups. I'd say that the attacks on the music festival and villages near the fence easily qualify for the term "terrorism", but so does Israel's retaliatory bombing of civilian targets. We're still quibbling over definitions (which is IMO inevitable), but at least we're talking about actions, rather than entire groups.

The BBC labels those acts as atrocities. To me, that's a more forceful and loaded word than "terroristic acts"

Yeah I think that's a better term. It's something that can be applied to both state and non state actors, and doesn't make implicit judgments about the legitimacy of either.

Something that is not explicitly said is that the people caring about Gaza split into two groups, pro-Hamas and pro-Israeli. These two groups vehemently oppose each other and believe only their side is right. This is quite different from the society at large who recognize that both sides are guilty and both sides are victims, and don't see any hope to solve this problem in any way.

So of course both sides care about reporting and how each group is presented. There will be more and more pressure for others to take sides and describe what is happening using labels that fit their side of the story.

Hamas behead civilians including babies and paraded them on Tiktok and telegram channels. Clear definition of terror to answer BBC's quandary.

Even the IDL admitted they couldn’t confirm those reports. Hamas has done plenty of atrocious things, we don’t need to sensationalize.

What do you mean IDL did not confirm those reports? Hamas itself published those videos proudly. IDL have videos of the kibbutz massacres

There is nothing sensational to state facts. Denial would be sensational and would require introspection.

You said they beheaded civilians including babies, that’s sensational. There were horrific acts, yes, but any reports of beheading of babies has been refuted by reporters and even the IDF.

"reports of beheading of babies has been refuted by reporters and even the IDF" No. Unless you are going to link to sources. Read the IDF spokesman wordings carefully.

https://www.businessinsider.com/idf-says-wont-back-up-behead...

I’m not denying massacres took place or that Hamas has done unforgivable things. Just that baby-beheading specifically is getting thrown around a lot without proof and even Israel is refusing to corroborate the claims.

Reports of attacks on babies are common in war propaganda, Iraqi troops removing babies from incubators in Kuwait comes to mind. This has a long history: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/oct/04/socialscie...

People who behead babies are monsters. Monster, terrorist, or war criminal this is really just a semantic argument, and most people don't care deeply about the difference. I understand that the BBC wants to use words precisely, because journalists really care about words.

The reason why people find this article deeply offensive is because by writing an article about how Hamas militants are not "terrorists" and comparing them with the IRA, you are in essence defending absolute monster engaging in pure evil and the argument that they might be righteous in their activities is hyper offensive to many people.

I feel BBC should simply not call them terrorists, but not engage in a debate about the definition of what they are and make compare them to other organizations as though they are equal to those organizations. Did the IRA behead a bunch of children?

The same could be said about a person stabbing someone to death. You could call it a incident. But if there was a clear intent it is called murder. Definition do matter. In above example you could argue a judge first has to declare someone guilty and I agree. In this particular case I "beleive" it is a statistically unrealistic scenario to not rule out bad intent. Thus fitting the definition. It is not about a matter of opinion, it is purely stating the fact of the act fitting the description of terrorism which I would argue isnt subjected to semantics of the vague aspects of the definition. Murder is still murder no matter who dun it.

Four top lawyers in the UK have asked the regulatory authority to investigate.

> In a letter to Ofcom, Lord Wolfson KC, Lord Pannick KC, Lord Grabiner KC and Jeremy Brier KC urged the regulator to investigate the corporation.

> The authors of the letter said that Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK and “that is not a matter of debate or discussion. It is a matter of legal fact.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/11/bbc-not-calling-...

you'll note they haven't sent a letter to Ofcom about any story on GBNews, of course.

Assuming you read the article, you appear to have missed the point.

The BBC isn't saying that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation, any more than they said the Nazis weren't evil during WWII.

Impartiality is a founding principle of the organisation. The BBC presents the facts, the rest of us (including the aforementioned lawyers) can use those facts to form an opinion.

As for the Telegraph article, just because the UK government has decided to classify Hamas as a terrorist organisation, it does make that description a universal fact. The BBC is a global organisation, not beholden to the opinion of the UK government, thankfully.

> The BBC isn't saying that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation, any more than they said the Nazis weren't evil during WWII.

They say they refuse to call it a terrorist organization, with weasel wording to try to hide their true colors.

Here's the fact: there are 18% of israelis, with passport and nationality from isreal, who are palestinians (out of 21% of arabs living in Israel).

How many percentage of jewish are living in Gaza? Not even percentage: just invididuals. How many jewish people are in Gaza? The answer is worse than 0: all the jewish people in Gaza are hostages.

Israel is retaliating and killing a lot of people, but they're not beheading babies (which apparently Hamas really did) and they're not executing innocent teenager girls at point blank.

They're not parading with dead innocent girls' naked bodies in pick-up trucks in Tel-Aviv.

And the 18% of palestinian living in Israel are free people and not hostages.

If you go out and kill teenagers (including non-jewish tourists) having fun at a music festival and behead babies, you're a terrorist organization.

Hamas is a terrorist organization which has always lived with the anti-semitism at its roots and which want to see the state of Israel disappear. There's no open discussion about whether Hamas is a terrorist organization or not.

The BBC showed their true color trying to pretend "people can make up their mind".

What I'm sure though is that all the anti-semitic people reading / watching the BBC are very happy that the BBC refused to called Hamas for the terrorists they are.

You know what is going on *because of* news organisations like the BBC.

The fact that the BBC doesn't use your preferred language to describe what is happening doesn't mean they're anti-Semitic (which I assume is what you meant by "their true color"). An anti-Semitic organisation wouldn't report the actions of Hamas.

How refreshing. I wish more news publications saw it that way. It's not their job to tell me what to think.

Of course, they're lying unfortunately. It's not some ethical stand to save the soul of journalism. The UK has a sizeable Muslim population and they're attempting to avoid the social fallout of backing a horse here. So they're staying neutral and dressing it up as journalistic ethics. Whatever gets you there I guess

I wish we had a LLM to BBC-ify the otherwise sensationalized reporting elsewhere. There would definitely be a market for this kind of service. For the reverse one as well, unfortunately.

Pro-tip: ask Claude to "rewrite this article in a cynical tone" and you'll be never go back. Changed my entire consumption of news.

It appears that Claude.ai is only available in US and UK at the moment.

Then you get the same spin, but obscured from you. Is that really better?

I dont care who does it. It fits the definition. So actually it is a stance of the BBC not to condem it. It alsmost is like they condone it now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

> It alsmost is like they condone it now.

Meanwhile, in TFA:

> It's perfectly reasonable to call the incidents that have occurred "atrocities", because that's exactly what they are.

Are you suggesting the BBC condones what they consider atrocities?

When you throw more wood on the fire, make sure it's dry.

> So actually it is a stance of the BBC not to condem it.

I think you missed the whole point.

The article states in no uncertain terms that "Our business is to present our audiences with the facts, and let them make up their own minds."

This goes against the use of loaded terms like "terrorist" because "Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally."

Not using a loaded term to describe something does not mean "they condone it".

There was a time when journalists were expected to present you with the facts and left you to think for yourself and make up your mind. It seems you have something against the latter.

People taking a stance based on presented facts of having a opinion based on them because of complete or incomplete information also fine. But it defeats the purpose of having the definition in the first place. I am referring to the using violence against non-combatants mostly civilians with the aim of spreading fear. Never have I said anything of being pro whomever, only condemming the act with the intention of spreading fear. Just like there is fear of US dropping bombs on afgan houses as it is to having planes flying into buildings. It is the behavior not the party who does it.

Then we should call USA a terrorist organisation. They have caused more harm than Hamas could ever dream of.

"Shock and awe" is a pretty good description of terror.

“Shock and awe” as a military tactic against military targets in a war may be terrifying (and intentionally so) but is not an act of terrorism, IMO.

I'll not argue your point, but I think the IMO does illustrate why the BBC is absolutely right to avoid using the term. Various governments, organisations, people try to define terrorism, but always meet the response "well, didn't the USA do that in Vietnam" or "didn't the British do that in Ireland", and they did. So now it is generally left undefined, or defined by diktat (see "it is a fact of law" mentioned above). In other words it is a yah-boo word, it means "use violence that I disapprove of", it has no place in reporting.

> Never have I said anything of being pro whomever, only condemming the act with the intention of spreading fear.

You've tried to accuse a journalism organization of condoning terrorism just because they explained why in general, due to the organization's founding principles, they refuse to use loaded words.

You've repeatedly missed their point, and unwittingly you're making their point as well.

Ok perhaps I did, maybe I was wrong with the example of the bbc. Other news outlets consistently make use of superlatives and after browsing other articles I must admit I didnt find any on their site. And with my initial post I didnt say they condoned it. I said it is almost like they condone it. These carefull use of words where to have the possibility of saving face and it is the same for journalism. Fact is most countries have defined Hamas as a terrorist organisation as is the UK even before these events. These events fit the general definition of terrorism is it not? I understand they are also more carefull now with their words because of the fine balance. I only argue I see it differently and contest their frame.

the really story of course is that the UK establishment fundamentally doesn't like a non-compliant press, and so beating up the BBC about whatever they happen to think of is just par for the course.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com