Skip to content


Why don’t they use the word Terrorist? 

17 thoughts on “The BBC”

  1. Trusted Broadcaster Huw Edwards

    The BBC reports on terrorists all the time:

    Terrorism: Police concern over teen far-right extremism

    By Jordan Davies & Emilia Davies
    BBC News
    25 January 2023

  2. Watching footage of pro-Palestinian protestors in Great Britain raises all sorts of important questions, such as:

    Why are these people in my country?
    Why are these people in my country?
    Why are these people in my country?

  3. I read once that the last terrorists who had the guts to call themselves terrorists were the Jewish terror gangs in Palestine before Israeli independence.

    The fact that for several years they were fighting on the same side as the Nazis (i.e. against the British Army) bothered them not a whit, apparently.

    I suppose you could say that in 1939-1941 they were fighting on the same side as both Hitler and Stalin, a fine boast.

    But the Anglo-Saxons, Irish, Normans and so on also did their share of terrorism, no doubt. There’s nothing especially Middle Eastern about it, is there? Does “shock and awe” imply terrorism? Sounds awfully like it.

  4. Q. Why don’t they use the word Terrorist?
    A. That’s not a nice way to talk about your friends.

  5. Ahh, the Black Broadcasting Corporation. Where white English men are banned to increase the tv pictures diversity. The management are pale, went to the right universities and are from “good” families. You can carry “diversity” too far doncha know…
    I find it strange that the BBC has so many Jewish people within the organisation but still follows the Corbyn playbook. Perhaps they’ve had orders from the Graun?

  6. Interesting that it appears everyone, including that bastion of ‘free’ speech TalkTV, were discussing the possibility of violence over the weekend but steadfastly refusing to point out it would be the peace loving supporters of’Palestine’ / moslems who would be committing the violence, rather than the evil ‘Isra eelies’.

  7. Define terrorist? Actions intended to inspire fear in the civilian population to influence events? In which case almost the entirety of WW2 was terrorist acts by both sides.. As is the “mutually assured destruction” nuclear defence posture.
    Colloquially: Our mates are freedom fighters, your mates are terrorists.
    By the first definition, there certainly aren’t any “right wing terrorists”. None of those accused of being so have shown the slightest intent to inspire fear in the general population. Generally they’re conspiring against the apparatus of the state.

    The actions of the various Jewish groups in Palestine, pre 48, were entirely conducted against the agents of the British occupying power.

  8. It was Lechi – aka the Stern Gang – that fought the British during the war, and tried to open negotiations with Mussolini. They were a tiny minority of the Palestinian Jews.
    The Irgun joined in in 1944. Also a minority.
    The book ‘Anonymous Soldiers’ has the detailed history. Its conclusion? Terrorism sometimes is successful.

  9. Looking back at that period, it’s worth noting that UK Gov had no reluctance to task the RN with interdiction operations against ships carrying Jewish refugees heading for Palestine. But seems entirely reluctant to do the same over “refugees” making their way to Kent.

  10. It’s to avoid internal confusion with terroiristes. Which is a common term within the BBC for those despicable people who refer to a sparkling wine from Kent, or California as Champagne.

  11. Why don’t they use the word Terrorist?

    Because calling them “Terrorists” and then them going back to work in the same open office at the BBC would make conversation difficult.

  12. BBC editorial guidelines suggest that calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.

    However as my esteemed colleague Trusted Broadcaster Huw Edwards points out in the first response, that doesn’t apply when referring to everyone to the right of Mao Zedong as Far-Right.

  13. I’m ok with the beeb choosing not to use descriptive terms – such as ‘terrorist’.
    But if this were true policy, it would be extended to individuals and organizations.
    But it isn’t.
    Both people and organizations are regularly described as ‘far right’ and ‘extreme right’. Now, these may be accurate descriptions of what the BBC believes about said people and organisations. If this is the case, then the BBC does indeed feel it good to apply labels to entities; so it is simply lying about its decision on Hamas.

    Not a surprise.

  14. A line you could argue for is to avoid calling an organisation or individual a “terrorist”, but to use that term to describe a particular incident or attack. Not a perfect solution but does help with the “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist” problem. Waters are often muddier than is comfortable. When an organisation of very nasty people attacks a valid military target in a manner largely in accordance with the laws of war, then calling that a “terrorist attack” comes across as taking sides with the government whose forces have been attacked. Describing such perpetrators as “terrorists” arguably isn’t helpful either, even if on other occasions they’ve done something that clearly puts them in that category. As soon as they suicide bomb a cafe or send a speeding HGV down a crowded shopping street or go house to house or school to school deliberately shooting kids, then pretending that’s not some kind of terrorist attack also makes you look like you’re taking sides… with terrorists. Though that last one, if ethnically or religiously targeted, does sound rather more like the Einsatzgruppen than anything else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *