It is the mission of the Society of Professional Journalists:[ul][li]To maintain constant vigilance in protection of the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press. []To foster excellence among journalists.[]To inspire successive generations of talented individuals to become dedicated journalists.[]To encourage diversity in journalism.[]To encourage a climate in which journalism can be practiced freely.Etc.[/ul]The SPJ recently passed a new resolution, “Guidelines for Countering Racial, Ethnic and Religious Profiling.”link. The question for debate is: [/li]
Do these guidelines go too far in the direction of political correctness?
I think some of them are over the edge. E.g.,
Jihad is a common word. Most people know the primary dictionary definition, which is a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty. I think it’s silly to pretend otherwise.
This one is unreasonable, partisan and bigoted:
First of all, these other terrorists have nothing to do with al Qaeda. Mentioning them provides no real insight. Second, look at the bias in the suggestions. The SPC Resolution doesn’t suggest such terrorists as the Students for a Democratic Society, inner city rioters, the Unabomber, or the New York City Puerto Rican Day rioters last year. Only right-wing terrorists are suggested.
More generally, there seems to be a contradiction between encouraging “a climate in which journalism can be practiced freely” vs. telling journalists to obey these rules in their writing.
I will stop here and invite the all-wise SDMB panel to contribute their $.02 worth.
The SDS are largely inactive, IIRC. Got a cite for the last time they blew anything up?
Inner city rioters don’t count as “terrorists” because they aren’t organized–they’re just spontaneous “mob action”.
The Unabomber is in jail, IIRC, so why should they specify him?
The NYC rioters–see above under “rioters”.
Those “other terrorists” have “nothing to do with Al Qaeda”, yes–but that’s because they’re in the category of “terrorists other than Al Qaeda”. “Other”. Duh. :rolleyes: Mentioning them is important because they are the most common “other terrorists” that an American journalist writing today is likely to run into. The Black September Movement is not mentioned because they don’t come up all that often. Ditto for the Red Brigades.
Okay–name some left-wing terrorist groups that you’d like to see included. Explain in what way their agendas are “left-wing”. Explain why they should be included.
No, I’d have to say that “most people” do NOT know the precise dictionary definition of the word “jihad”, and do NOT use it correctly. Since 9/11 I’ve seen it thrown around a lot, incorrectly.
IMO these guidelines are no more PC than any other high school English teacher’s guidelines.
And this whole OP is IMO really a stretch for a debate topic.
So, you don’t think journalists should have any rules at all, that it’s muffling their rights of free speech?
I agree with december that the SPJ’s rule #5 is pretty stupid (not to mention condescending).
Well, what “right wing” terrorists should be included? Timothy McVeigh? He’s dead. If it’s relevant to mention him, why isn’t it relevant to mention SDS or Black September or the Red Brigades? Personally, I think journalists should mention non-Al-Qaida terrorists in stories about Al-Qaida terrorism to the extent it’s actually relevant to the story. If you’re writing about the evolution of hijackings and our responses to them, of course you’d mention secular Palestinian nationalists and homesick Cubans and all the rest of it. If you’re talking about the history of airline sabotage and bombings, you’d mention Lockerbie and that guy back in the '50’s who blew up an airliner to collect the insurance on his own mother. But I think a rule that you always “remember to include white supremacist, radical anti-abortionists and other groups with a history of such activity” when writing about terrorism is insulting and ham-handed. (“Terrorists released a bioengineered virus that they say will kill 90% of the human race within a week; they claim they will provide the antidote if the entire human race converts to strict Wahhabi-Salafist Islam and a World Islamic Caliphate is established to rule the planet. But let’s remember that white males have also done bad stuff in the past!”)
Well, MEBuckner while agreeing with the general tenor of your post, I will throw these charming fellows out there as, as one source in this article put it, “an Afrikaaner al-Qaeda”, which does leave some room for comparison in certain contexts:
The Tamil Tigers also bear some comparison to groups like Hamas, if we start talking about such things as the tactics of suicide bombers.
But obviously the above examples don’t necessarily disagree with anything you said. If it is relevant, include it. If not, don’t.
Re #5: At one time there seemed to be an unwritten rule among some of the liberal media that criticism of Democrats should always include mention of Republicans who had done something similar. E.g., a New York Times editorial criticizing some current act of venallity by a Democrat would always refer to some act of venality by some Republican. OTOH, current Republican venality could be criticized with no mention of Democrats. This practice tended to give the impression that Republicans were more venal than Democrats.
Rule #5 has no complement. It doesn’t instruct journalists to refer to Muslim terrorism when writing about white supremicists or radical anti-abortionists. So it will tend to give the impression that Muslim terrorism is less common than those other types.
BTW Rule #5 literally says, “When writing about terrorism… include… other groups with a history of such activity.” So, it could be interpreted as encouraging mentioning Muslim terroristism when writing about murderers of abortionists. Of course, it doesn’t really mean that, since it’s addressed under the title of “Racial, Ethnic and Religious Profiling.”
No, you are merely displaying your ignorance of the meaning of the word, “jihad.” In Arabic, “jihad” means a struggle, usually with some moral dimension. From the Department of Islamic Studies at USC:
Jihad can encompass struggle by the sword against unbelievers, but that is not what the word means. Merely because many Americans use the word in ignorance does not change what the word actually means. I urge you to do more reading on the subject. Make it your own personal jihad.
Because they’re the groups who have caused trouble in the recent past. If it makes you happy to include the Weathermen or the Symbionese Liberation Army, do so; just bear in mind that much of your audience born after 1970 won’t have the foggiest idea to whom you refer. In any event, the intention is to ensure that the news writers’ audience is not led to conflate terrorism only with Islam.
Generally, when I read sentences like this one, I tend to see the writer subsituting “political correctness” for " commonly accepted standards of decency which contradict my personal cherished prejudices."
OK, but in English it means a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty. Shouldn’t American journalists use words based on what they mean in the English language?
My preference is not to include irrelevent instances of terrorism.
Yes. Although I would re-state your last clause as “that the news writers’ audience is not led to conflate terrorism especially with Islam.” The problem, as I see it, is that the SJC has assumed the answer or begged the question. Is Muslim terrorism a special, unique problem right now? Maybe so; maybe not. But, the SPJ Guideline presumes without evidence that it’s not.
Istara and Gobear both see this as see *the writer subsituting “political correctness” for " commonly accepted standards of decency which contradict my personal cherished prejudices." * I will remind you that decency has long been the excuse for censorship. E.g., the Legion of Decency (the Catholic Church), the Production Code Administration (1930) who set their own standards similiar to a combination of religious values and what was already established as censorship. More recently, Rudy Guiliani was allegedly labeled a “fascist” for establishing a decency panel in New York City.
It would appear that december wants us to use jihad as the word has evolved, in English, from Chaucer, through Shakespeare, and on down into modern English. Oh, wait, that’s right, jihad has no meaning in English, since it’s not an English word, by any stretch of the imagination. It’s an Arabic word - the only definition of it that makes any sense at all is the definition of the word in Arabic, no? Widespread misuse of the word by English speakers doesn’t change that.
On the other side, many Islamic believers get very upset whenever we use the word crusade; in their minds, that word refers to a specific series of events in the Middle Ages. Their limited definition of the word is incorrect, of course - the proper definition of crusade, in English, encompasses much more than Europe’s attempts to conquer the “Holy Land.” Are you arguing that their definition of crusade is correct, simply because many people in the Islamic world define it that way?
No, that is not a proper definition; it is, as I said, a misinterpretation of the Arabic. To be fair, m-w.com does provide a definition of jihad as “a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty,” but that is the result of sloppy scholarship on their part. The purpose of this board is to refute ignorance, not perpetuate it.
Now that is fatuous. Nowhere do Istara or I advocate censorship, and to impute that to me, Mr, First Amendment Absolutist, is ludicrous. Now, of course if you wish to redefine “censorship” as demanding exactitude in language, then I’m afraid there’s not much I can do to argue against such Humpty-Dumpty portmanteauing of the language.
The purpose of an English (or American English, if you prefer) dictionary is to document how words are being used in the English language. My 1985 MW dictionary gives the same exact definition, i.e., “a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty”. Moreover, it has been used that way in the English language since 1869. No sloppy scholarship is involved, that is how the word has been used in English for 130 years.
yet another slur w/o substance. “Unwritten rule” of course begs off the demand for ‘cite’. I suggest to you december that this particular paragraph added nothing to your OP, and in at least my eyes added to the growing mountain of “slurs that only he sees”, and general ‘it’s me agin everrybody else’ stance you seem to take.
If you wish to have fewer pit threads, fewer people ragging on you for your argumentative style, I suggest that you stop posting asides like this.
In the future, I’ll just refer to it by asking you once again if you’ve stopped beating your wife.
And, Wring, the best part of it is, it all has absolutely nothing to do with the OP!
Rule #5 is “unreasonable”, “partisan” and “bigoted”? If you take it out of context, yeah, it is. But if you click on the link and read the entire document, no, it isn’t. It fits in perfectly.
It begins:
So the whole point of the guidelines is to encourage journalists to “explore diversity” and to be “informative and not inflammatory”.
So then it goes on:
And then, smack in the middle of all these actually quite sensible reminders of the importance of diversity in reporting…
In other words, if you’re writing a 10,000-word piece for Parade on terrorism, don’t report only on those terrorist groups made up of Foreigners With Dark Skin–report on the terrorist groups made up of Americans With White Skin, too.
Not partisan at all.
Right, because it doesn’t need to, becaaaaause—annnnnd—
…nope, sorry, it couldn’t, becaaaaaause–the guidelines don’t say, “When you’re writing about a certain terrorist group, make sure you mention other terrorist groups, too.” That would be stupid. That would be like saying, “When you’re writing about the Chicago Cubs, make sure you mention the White Sox, too.”
No, what it says is, “when you’re writing about terrorism”, period. That’s as in, “Generic Terrorism”, as in “Terrorism in general”. When you’re writing a 20,000-word piece for Harper’s on “Terrorism”, make sure you cover the radical anti-abortionists as well as Al Qaeda. When you’re writing a 20,000 word piece for Harper’s on “Major League Baseball”, make sure you cover the White Sox as well as the Cubs. Don’t leave the American League out of it.
From the OP:
**Well, which is it? Either you want them to include irrelevant instances of terrorism–such as the SDS, who (I looked it up) are “essentially dead”, or the Unabomber, who is (I looked it up) serving a life sentence in “The Big One”, not to mention various rioters, who aren’t even “terrorists”–or you don’t. Make up ya mind.
You make it sound like they’re making a wild uninformed guess, which they’re not, because they’re right. Muslim terrorism is not a “special unique problem” right now. I know from another thread that you personally believe that there’s a world-wide Muslim terrorism conspiracy to bring down the West, but it just ain’t so. Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism is the same problem it’s always been (Al Qaeda was founded in 1988), only this time the bombs are a little bit bigger, and the American Public is a little bit more informed about the world-wide scope of the problem, thanks to Al Qaeda’s attention-getting device of blowing up the World Trade Center.
The American Way Of Life was never in any danger before, and it isn’t in any danger now. You sound like you’re offended that the SPJ is instructing its members to pay attention to other terrorist groups besides “Muslim terrorism”. There’s no reason the media should focus only on Muslim terrorism, and there’s no reason for the SPJ not to instruct journalists to focus on other terrorist groups, too.
**This sounds like you think the liberal media is showing its bias against the Right. So I asked you, “What left-wing groups do you think should have been included?” And I’m still waiting to hear.
I didn’t mean to accuse you two of advocating censorship, but I did mean to accuse SPJ of doing something close to it. According to m-w, “to censor” means to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. SPJ #5 does endeavor to suppress something they consider objectionable. One could argue that they’re not examining, so they’re not fully complying with the definition. However, their Guideline encourages editors to examine whether journalists comply.
And, what you call “demanding exactitude of language,” someone else might call “demanding that the story be written from a preferred POV.” This is another name for suppressing something they consider objectionable. Note that even if they’re right and the suppressed material is objectively objectionable (whatever that means), they’d still be “suppressing something they consider objectionable.”
OTOH maybe it’s not censorship if we ignore the English definition and go back to the original Latin.
wring, you have a point. If I want to rag on the New York Times, I should start a separate thread.
BTW, please take a look at Duck Duck Goose’s statement:
I hope you will be as critical of her provocative, uncited comment as you were of mine.
Duck Duck Goose, I agree that most of the Guidelines are fine. As the OP said, “I think some of them are over the edge.” (emphasis added)
As to your interpretation of #5, I cannot prove you wrong. As I said, I think its intended meaning is different from its literal meaning.
However, I cannot agree with your interpretation. Journalists seldom write articles about terrorism in the abstract. The great majority of articles about terrorism are about specific acts of terrorism or specific groups. I think #5 is intended to apply to the great majority of articles, not the rare exceptions.
You wrote:
Actually, I answered this question in my prior post. * My preference is not to include irrelevent instances of terrorism.* I thought that was a clear statement objecting to a requirement to mention any terrorists – right-wing or left-wing. In other words, I objected to the entirety of #5.
The guidelines are for “coverage of the war on terrorism”. Granted, the Administration’s phrase is rather ill-defined, but the “war on terrorism” doesn’t seem to include radical anti-abortionists as a target thereof. And why specifically include white supremacists and radical anti-abortionists as the only two named “alternative” groups? I have no love for either group, but why didn’t the SPJ specify the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or the ETA, or better yet simply say “in general articles about terrorism, include background on the historical context of terrorism, including the development and use of terrorist tactics by both Muslim and non-Muslim groups”. Or something. Hell, I’m just making stuff up off the top of my head; these guys are supposed to be professional writers. As it is, it still looks like a ham-handed attempt to interject references to terrorist actions by groups which are stereotypically associated with “angry white males” into coverage of the “War on Terror”, which is of course not being waged against “angry white males” at all.
I do think it’s reasonable for articles which use the concept of jihad to discuss the various different ways in which people use the term. An analogy with “crusade”, including an analogy to how the terms are perceived on opposite sides of the Christian-Muslim divide, might well be a useful way of helping Western readers understand the concept.
Here’s a Guideline that I find stupid, bigoted, and offensive:
Journalists need to seek out experts who know what they’re talking about. I haven’t seen any Native American military experts on TV. Does the lack of Native American military experts harm the coverage? Should journalists seek out a less qualified Native American to address military matters, just to satisfy a quota? I don’t think so. We’re at war and we’re contemplating more war. The public needs accurate military assessments.
And, what does class have to do with military, public safety, etc.? Who even knows what class an interviewed expert is? Why does it matter if some retired general or retired detective is rich or middle class or bankrupt?
It would be different if the guideline warned journalists not to overlook experts, because of their ethnicity. I would fully support such a warning. But, the way the Guideline is worded, ISTM journalists are told to prefer weaker experts in under-represented ethnicities.
And, why should balance focus only on race, class, gender and geography? Are they the most important aspects of an expert? How about political position, religion, and philosphy within the field of expertise. Regarding the latter point, consider the example of economics. Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman hold similar economic views, even though one is a black Christian from the west coast and the other is a white Jew from the midwest. Having these two people on a panel would provide no balance at all in the area that counts – their view of economics.
I think the proper approach should be to seek out the most qualified experts possible. Defining experts in terms of their enthicity is bigotry in my book.
december, military experts are not exclusive to the Pentagon or the Cato Institure, as we seemed to have noticed, nor is economic strategy is limited to actions on Wall Street. With the several scandals and 9/11, the people’s trust in several institutions, already strained, have been all but shattered. People are looking for new sources. That was reflected #4, as the journalists realized that they were duped as well as the public.
And if they must list examples of other specific groups, their choice does say alot about their political allegiances. Where are the left-wing terrorist groups? Where’s Greenpeace, or those animal-“liberation” people who steal, vandalize, and destroy both private and public property? Like the pro-life movement, environmentalism is not made up of mostly violent nutballs, but they both have their fringe. Why list the “right-wing” group and exclude the group made up mostly of radical leftists?
And how is a voluntary professional organization writing guidelines telling anyone to “obey these rules”? In my former life as a reporter I was not a member of the SPJ, neither are several of my friends who are still journalists, despite writing for major-market papers. But even we knew that if we followed the SPJ guidelines, we’d be better reporters.
