Tart Cider: Zing

« I don't get it | Main | Tears of plaige »

July 20, 2005

Zing

I think the whole terrorist/not terrorist thing is silly — the media outlets seem to be the only ones with a hangup about using the word. But it just isn't that big a deal unless you're already convinced that the demon mainstream media is "on the side of the terrorists," a theme that's so almightily tired and stupid that there's no point even addressing it any more.

Via Ms Zerbisias, someone who calls himself "wonderdog" puts it very nicely:

It's rather like watching Colleen Jones burble that the sun is shining, and it's 27 degrees, and the sky contains precisely three white, puffy clouds. Not many of us would throw our coffee at the television and yell, "Goddamn it, why can't that bitch just admit that it's a beautiful day?"

Posted by Chris Selley at July 20, 2005 10:46 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tartcider.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/6

Comments

Well, that was insightful.

When state-funded media expresses a concern that certain terminology is "controversial" because they might be viewed as "taking sides" - against an enemy of the state - then their allegiance should and must be questioned.

This is not a question of semantics - the debate over the word "terrorism" is symptomatic of the rot at the core of the institution.

If the CBC is convinced that they must be morally neutral against an enemy of western liberal democracy, then it is overdue that they become fiscally neutral as well. Cut off their funding and wish them Godspeed with that miniscule audience share they command.

Posted by: Kate at July 21, 2005 01:01 AM

Well, put it this way. I think the CBC should use the word "terrorism" and "terrorist" whenever it sees fit. It's a descriptive word — there's no logical reason to avoid using it.

Where we disagree is in how big a deal it is that they have this policy. I think it makes the CBC look timorous and nauseatingly PC-obsessed; you think it makes them treasonous. But the idea that the CBC would rather see Al Qaeda "win" than the other side, and that neglecting to use the t-word somehow makes that more likely to happen, defies common sense.

(cross-posted at SDA)

Posted by: Chris Selley at July 21, 2005 09:17 AM

It's not that the CBC would rather the terrorists win. Rather, it is that the CBC believes that it has an ethical obligation, as a journalistic organization, not to prefer (or perhaps to be perceived as preferring) that Al Qaeda lose (ie, to be neutral in their reporting). Further evidence for this can be heard in Michael Enright's May 8th conversation with David Halton about war correspondent Matthew Halton: they both remarked that Matthew's apparent preference for a Canadian victory would be unacceptable today.

That point demonstrated, we move on to what raises Kate's (and others') ire: we think that the case against Al Qaeda is clear enough that one can only maintain the supposed journalistic requirement of neutrality at the expense of abandoning much more important ethical imperatives. That it should be the public broadcaster, supposedly the representative of all Canadians, doing this, only makes it worse.

Posted by: MarkC at July 21, 2005 10:06 AM

Oh no Chris! Watch out! Kate is calling you *dangerous* over on her blog.

Next thing you know... she's be calling for you to be "locked up!" for appeasing the terrorists! [Somewhat inflammatory remark deleted, as it wasn't helping.]

It must be a very difficult thing indeed to live in a world where anybody who disagrees with you is seen as "dangerous".

Posted by: MWW at July 21, 2005 12:34 PM

Chris - I don't know that anyone ever asserted that the Ceeb "wants the terrorists to win" (other than; "if we stop watching American TV, then the terrorists have won"). I agree that it makes them look like patsies (or in your better description 'timorous and nauseatingly PC-obsessed').

None-the-less, it is a big deal. Not as big as funding health care, and not as big as government corruption, but bigger than some no-name's comment on the NHL settlement or Wayne Gretzky's daughter being a fashion model. It indicates the degree to which the Ceeb (and others) are willing to subjugate accuracy for inoffensiveness, or PCness. The fundamental requirement for a news organization is to be accurate - that requires calling a terrorist a terrorist; whether he is blowing up the London Underground or an abortion clinic. I expect at least that from a well-funded public broadcaster created expressly to serve the public interest.

Cheers,

Dean

Posted by: DCardno at July 21, 2005 02:49 PM

[Take it up with MWW, MikeP. There's no need to have it here. -CS]

Posted by: MikeP at July 21, 2005 05:37 PM

Dean, that's just it. It's a "CBC sucks" issue, not a war on terror issue.

Posted by: Chris Selley at July 21, 2005 07:50 PM

Oh - I always took it as a "Ceeb sucks" issue. I read the thread over on BBG and it seemed that's the way everyone else took it, too. Maybe I was projecting, or maybe the comments were substantially different at SDA, althoug I thought I had followed the thread there, too....

Dean

Posted by: DCardno at July 21, 2005 08:53 PM

Deaner, did you just say anything at the CBC was more important than Paulina Gretzky? *shaking head*

Posted by: Damian at July 21, 2005 08:53 PM

You mean its allright for MWW to defame someone on your blog as she has done on many others, but not all right for someone to point it out to her.
Not to worry mate I generally stay away from liberal blogs.

Posted by: MikeP at July 21, 2005 10:38 PM

MikeP, I edited MWW's post such that it's more or less on-topic and doesn't bring anyone into it but Kate. You have the right, and the means, to respond to MWW, but that's none of Tart Cider's business.

Posted by: Chris Selley at July 22, 2005 01:03 AM

What can I say? I'm with you, and as a neophyte blogger, I'm glad to have stumbled over here.

The word "terrorist" is such a convenient and yet useless label. It replaces "communist," which I guess replaced some earlier all-purpose label for "the enemy." I've had a few things to say on the issue myself, mostly on the selectivity involved in using such generic descriptors.

But Kate, as usual, lays it on the line. She thinks the CBC should simply be an arm of the "anti-terrorists," and that it is disloyal, somehow, for it to adopt a more detached stance from current events. She's not alone: people want their demons demonized, dammit, not described. Caught up in high drama, as they are, they want a morality play, not the news.

Hence the impatience, in fact antagonism, when commentators look for root causes. Historical events do have causes that can be discerned with much toil and trouble, but the struggle of good against evil needs no such analysis. Evil is just evil, and good is good, and next scene, please, where the devil's wily plans are thwarted once again by the forces of truth and light.

There's no reasoning with such people, because they are enjoying their play and don't want to be disturbed by audience noise. All we can hope for is that they keep on searching their neighbourhoods for pods instead of organizing a successful journalistic takeover bid. "And here's the six o'clock news with Jerry Falwell." Now, there's a nightmare for you.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 22, 2005 09:49 AM

Hmmmm... isn't calling tart cider a "Dangerous Idiot" kind of "Defmatory" MikeP? Think about that.

Posted by: MWW at July 22, 2005 05:04 PM

http://loudwww.dyndns.dk/trannies-having.html
http://loudwww.dyndns.dk/trannies-having-sex.html
http://loudwww.dyndns.dk/trannies-pics.html
http://loudwww.dyndns.dk/with-trannies.html
http://loudwww.dyndns.dk/www-trannies.html
http://loudwww.dyndns.dk/www-trannies-com.html
http://loudwww.dyndns.dk/trannies-who.html
http://loudwww.dyndns.dk/hung-trannies.html

Posted by: Ruby at November 1, 2005 09:33 AM

Posted by: Bane at November 3, 2005 07:44 AM

Posted by: Bane at November 9, 2005 10:11 AM

Posted by: Bane at November 11, 2005 07:10 AM

Posted by: Bane at November 12, 2005 01:36 AM

July 20, 2005

Zing

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment