It’s the first day of the gathering of the Religion Newswriters Association, and it began with a long pre-conference event called “Covering Islam.” Some of it was a bit rudimentary – like the basics of the faith – but there was a lot of good info, and speakers from places such as the American Society for Muslim Advancement, the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
One thing which often came up, and was repeated at my dinner table was the use of the term “Islamic terrorists” in the media. In a profession that values precision, concision, and objectivity, a lot of people, especially those in the Muslim community, have issues with the phrase.
First, many think that “Islamic terrorist” implies that there is something innately Islamic about their acts, rather than simply a violent interpretation that is not shared by the vast majority of Muslims. For them, “Muslim terrorist” is often preferred, as it still shows the offender’s faith, but does not imply a general tie to the entire faith.
But does the average reader understand the distinction?
Many think not, so there’s a much wordier, but more precise, alternative. Some think that even though the current “War on Terrorism” involves many religious Muslim extremists, religion is only a front for a whole bunch of other motivations, especially economic and social issues. Using a phrase like “Islamic terrorist” only allows them to further their false message that their missions came from God, these detractors say, and thus should not be used. They prefer phrases like “terrorist who says his mission is due to a religious cause.”
They almost never win out.
Journalists generally will identify people as they identify themselves. To do anything else would be too subjective. After all, if you identify yourself as Presbyterian, but I don’t think you’re Presbyterian enough, and you don’t belong to a major church, can I relabel you? We have an obligation to report even what we disagree with if we can’t disprove it. And you can’t disprove religious faith.
Most journalists painstakingly try to be as objective as they can, even if they fail sometimes. We try to leave opinions to the op-ed pieces. But words almost always carry extra meaning, no matter how specific you try to be. Take, for example, “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” Most journalists do not use these words. They’re too heavy and biased, used by campaigns to impugn their opponents. After all, are people “anti-choice” or “anti-life”? (Only the most extreme would think so). Instead, we use “pro-abortion-rights” and “anti-abortion.” It’s closer to the heart of the stances in the debate.
But it gets harder with immigration. There’s not as easy an alternative to “illegal immigrants,” which opponents to the phrase say puts the illegality on the person, and not the act. And you can’t, after all, have an illegal person. Therefore, some now use “undocumented immigrants,” but that just sounds like they left their wallets at home, taking the whole idea that they broke the law out of the equation. There’s a constant battle in the media over which term to use, and neither has any real neutrality. (Guess which terms Fox and CNN choose.)
But what do you do with “Islamic terrorist”? Is it the fault of the media if some of its readership is unable to distinguish between a Muslim who is a terrorist and the 99.99 percent of Muslims who are against terrorism?
No, it’s not. But that doesn’t mean it’s not part of the media’s job to correct it.
If some people are so uninformed that they can’t see that most Muslims are against violence, then no amount of rattling off facts and figures is going to change that. If this part of the public needs the media to hold its hand to guide it to a more enlightened view, so be it.
It’s a hard line to walk. You can’t take the Islam out of the terrorism, because that would be incorrect, even if it’s a great exception. But you don’t want to harp on the exceptionalism of it, because then you become a parrot endlessly repeating “most Muslims don’t condone terrorism,” because it’s annoying. More importantly, though, it’s sounds like protesting too much, despite its truth.
I doubt there is an answer. But I’m voting for “a terrorist who justifies his actions through a radical form of Islam,” followed by a longer, more exculpatory phrase later on. It’s burdensome and clunky, but at least it’s clear. But it’s the best we’ve got.
