‘REBELS’, ‘TERRORISTS’ AND BBC By Fr.Vimal Tirimanna, CSsR

When the LTTE launched a surprise pre-dawn aerial attack on March 26, the BBC news bulletins very correctly reserved their first headline for this event for it was the first time in the world that a terrorist organization had used air power of their own against a legitimate government. In reporting this event, the BBC kept on referring to the LTTE as "the LTTE rebels". This is not the first time (and it will surely not be the last time!) that the BBC used the word "rebels" to refer to the internationally notorious terrorist organization, the LTTE. Surprisingly, however, the writer, who is a daily follower of the BBC news, has never heard the same BBC ever referring to the Al Quaeda or the Hamas or the Hisabollah as "the Al Queada rebels" or "the Hamas rebels" or "the Hisabollah rebels". The unacceptable attack on the twin-towers in Manhatten in New York on 11th September 2001, is referred to by the same BBC always as "the terrorist attack" and never as "the rebel attack". At the same time, the same BBC never did refer to the attacks in Madrid or London, which followed the 11th September 2001, as "rebel attacks"! Moreover, whenever the BBC refers to the so-called "war on terror" of President George W. Bush it has never called it "the war on rebellion". As a close follower of the BBC news bulletin from my childhood, I cannot be the only person to be bewildered by this strange, haphazard use of the words "rebels" and "terrorists" by the BBC. What are the criteria used by the BBC to brand certain groups involved in terrorism as "rebels" while calling other such groups as "terrorists"?

The well-known American media expert, Wesley G. Pippert points out how a callous use of words in the media can distort public opinion:

It is easy for even the most talented journalist to lapse into stereotypes and clichés that harm the pursuit of truth. The words that journalists use are important, perhaps as important as their stories, in the pursuit of justice and peace. Words often are used with unfortunate nuances that convey more meaning than their literal definition. [Wesley Pippert, An Ethics of News: A Reporter’s Search for Truth, Georgetown University Press, 1989, p.22].

The two English words "rebel" and "terrorist" have not only two different meanings, but they also convey very different subtle moral nuances. The Oxford Dictionary (which cannot be a stranger to the BBC English!) renders the noun "rebel" as ‘a person who refuses to continue allegiance to an established government’, ‘a person who takes up arms against the government’, ‘a person who resists authority or control’, ‘a person who refuses to obey’ or ‘a person who protests strongly’. The same Dictionary has placed the noun "terrorist" under the other noun "terrorism", and renders the noun "terrorism" as ‘the use of violence and intimidation, especially for political purposes’[Cfr., The Oxford Paperback Dictionary (Third Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988]. Another version of the Oxford Dictionary renders the noun "terrorist" as ‘a person who supports or participates in terrorism’, and renders the other noun "terrorism" as ‘the use of violence and threats of violence , esp. for political purposes’ [Cfr., Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (Fourth Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992]. Any reader with a minimum sense of intelligence should be able to grasp here not only two different meanings of the two terms ‘rebel’ and ’, but should also be quick to sense a very clear moral distinction between the two terms. Terrorism is inherently associated with ‘violence’ whereas rebellion is not necessarily so; the word ‘rebel’ is much milder than the word ‘terrorist’ by any criterion of judgement. The BBC English news composers surely cannot pretend to be ignorant of this important, common sense linguistic and moral distinction between these two terms.

In view of the BBC’s apparent random usage of these two terms "rebel" and "terrorist", the all-important question is: How does the BBC determine that certain groups involved in terrorism or violence are "rebels" while the others are "terrorists"? Perhaps, the deaths and injuries caused to persons and the damage inflicted on property in the USA, Europe and the First World are construed to be different from other similar deaths, injuries and damages in other parts of the world. Consequently, though for any person with common sense the victims of terrorism are the same human beings all over the world, for the BBC, there seems to be ‘unworthy victims’ in the Third World countries (especially those countries that are not clients of the First World) and ‘worthy victims’ in the so-called First World (who owns and sets the agenda for the BBC and 80% of the international media). Accordingly, those innocent civilians (both Sinhalese and Tamil) who die in Sri Lanka due to LTTE suicide bombings and brutal killings are not considered to be ‘worthy victims’ whereas those innocent civilians who die in the First World countries such as those who died on 11th Sept.2001, in New York or in the subsequent terrorist attacks in London or Madrid are always considered to be ‘worthy victims’. The latter are ‘worthy’ to be given wide emotional media coverage and their killers are ‘worthy’ to be called "terrorists". The former victims are not only ‘unworthy’ to be given that much of media coverage and their killers are ‘unworthy’ to be called "terrorists"; so, those killers are called by the much milder term "rebels" which is non-offensive, and often, morally neutral.

Or could it be that the BBC has already determined that certain terrorist causes are ‘worthy causes’ while the others are ‘unworthy causes’, and consequently, those involved in terrorism to achieve those ‘worthy causes’ are called "rebels" while those involved in similar terrorism to achieve those ‘unworthy causes’ are called "terrorists"? But again, the all-important question is: What are the criteria used by the BBC to come to such conclusions? Still worse, who decides who is a "rebel" and who is a "terrorist"?

The irony, however, in the particular case of the LTTE is that most of the countries of the First World have already officially branded the LTTE as "terrorists" and included them in their lists of notorious international terrorist groups, along with Al Quaeda, Hamas,….etc. These countries include the USA, the members of the EU and India. The British government, the patron of the BBC too, has included the LTTE in the list of international terrorist groups. But for the self-righteous BBC (which often claims to be the most impartial international news reporters), for some strange, inexplicable reason, the LTTE are only "rebels" never "terrorists"! It is high time that the BBC came out publicly explaining to us, their long-time clients, how and with what criteria the BBC arrive at such judgments. If they don’t, then, we are not only free to put forward different hypothesis (as I have done above) for this strange random use of the words "rebel" and "terrorist", but we are to conclude that the BBC tacitly approves our hypothesis.

The BBC and the western media along with their governments are very vociferous about democracy in the world. Accordingly, they very correctly highlight media freedom as a cornerstone of democracy. But what sort of a media freedom is promoted by them , particularly the BBC, when they deliberately resort to this sort of double-dealing? Aren’t they promoting distortions when the perpetrators of the same immoral violent acts [acts of terrorism in our case] are called in certain cases as acts of "rebels" and in certain other cases as acts of "terrorists"? Aren’t they guilty of propagating deliberately distorted, manipulated information, information that is favourable only to their blue-eyed boys, such as the LTTE? Is this the media freedom that the BBC and all their international and local clientele are clamouring about?

In the BBC News Hour programme at 4 in the morning (GMT), on 26th March, after having reported that the "LTTE rebels" had used two light aircraft to bomb the Sri Lankan air force camp neighbouring the Colombo international airport, Dr.Saravanamuththu Pakkiyasothi was interviewed on this incident. One of the questions posed to him by the BBC was whether that was not a mere "symbolical" attack. One wonders whether the same BBC interviewed any US State Department official in the aftermath of the 11th September attack in 2001 to ask whether the attack on ‘twin towers’ too, was a mere symbolical attack! After all, by any standards, the twin-towers of Manhatten surely were symbolical for the US pride! But the BBC did not concentrate on the ‘symbolical’ aspect then; instead, they rightly highlighted the terrible damage done to human lives and property. How come the same BBC treats terrorist attacks in other parts of the Third World (especially, in Sri Lanka) very differently? We cannot help but conclude that according to the BBC, terrorist attacks on any western targets, are "serious terrorist acts", but similar attacks elsewhere (especially in Sri Lanka and elsewhere in the Third World) are harmless "symbolical acts" performed by a bunch of unruly "rebels"!

It is ridiculous to note how the BBC is trying to molly-coddle their blue-eyed boys, the LTTE whom their own government has branded as a "terrorist organization". It is precisely because the BBC sees no acts of ‘terror’ in the LTTE that they continue to use a less offensive term ‘the LTTE rebels’. It is also because of this BBC’s overtly partial and paternal attitude towards the LTTE that they always try their best to portray successive Sri Lankan governments as ‘enemies of Tamils of Sri Lanka’. [Notice carefully the BBC never makes the realistic distinction between the Sri Lankan Tamils and the LTTE]. That is why every time the Sri Lankan government retaliates LTTE terror by bomings an identified target, the BBC highlights the resultant civilian casualties and the displaced refugees. [The distortions the BBC made with regard to the numbers of the ‘fleeing Tamil refugees’ in the case of Sampur, last year, is a classic case in point, for which they never apologized]. The irony, however, is that when the USA and Britain fight the so-called ‘war on terror’ and indiscriminately bomb targets in Afghanistan, the same BBC does not seem to see any civilian casualties or any refugees fleeing. Similarly when both the USA and Britain closed their eyes and gave tacit approval for Israel to bomb Lebanon into pre-historic periods last year, claiming that they were trying to flush out Hisabollah terrorists, the BBC did not highlight the civilian casualties or the number of refugees fleeing. Even when they scarcely mentioned something in passing about civilian casualties or refugees fleeing in this Lebanese case, the BBC made sure to counter-balance it by immediately interviewing or quoting someone about the security of the State of Israel. The same holds good with regard to the current daily civilian casualties in Iraq which were in the first place triggered off thanks to the US and British led forces invading Iraq in 2003. Instead, today, the BBC is at pains along with their other western media agencies to project what is happening in Iraq right now as nothing but a mere internal rivalry between the Sunnies and the Shiites. In short when the US and British led western allies fight a so-called ‘war on terror’ even twisting international law [such as in the case of the notorious ‘legalised’ inhuman abuses of prisoners, as in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghrahib prisons], the BBC does not see any moral problem, simply because they are supposed to be fighting whom the BBC calls "terrorists"! But when the government of Sri Lanka is fighting one of the deadliest terrorist organizations in the world [the only terrorist organization in the world to have sea and air power!], the BBC is very worried about the harassments of "the LTTE rebels" [not the "LTTE terrorists"!] by the Sri Lankan government. So, they take great pains to highlight the civilian casualties and the refugees fleeing! Here, the BBC never speaks of the national security of the State of Sri Lanka, but they used to trumpet aloud that of Israel when the latter was carpet-bombing another country, Lebanon, last year, claiming that it was for her national security.

Some two decades ago, Wesley Pipit pointed out the ambiguity inherent in the very word "terrorist" in its contemporary media usage:

The word "terrorist" is a loosely used accusation, especially in the Middle East. "The problem", it has been pointed out, "is that your terrorist is my freedom fighter – and vice versa". We may define "terrorism" as the use of calculated violence against innocent civilians, often with a political objective. In the Middle East, the word "terrorist" has become synonymous for many Americans with "Arab" and "Palestinian". Israelis always refer to members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization as "terrorists". On the other hand, the Israelis also called Lebanese "terrorists" even when these Lebanese were attacking Israeli military forces occupying southern Lebanon.

We may infer from what Pipit says above that those whom the so-called "international community" (including the USA and Britain) have called "terrorists", namely, the LTTE, are perhaps "freedom fighters", for the BBC. This may precisely be why they are regularly called "LTTE rebels", instead of calling them "terrorists". What is contested in this article is first of all that the BBC is using this difficult and morally loaded term at random, according to their own whims and fancies. Thus, groups like Al Quaeda are freely called "terrorists" by the BBC, but not the LTTE. Our crucial question is: What objectively perceptible difference is their between the two when it comes to performing same acts of terrorism? Our second concern [of course, closely linked to the first] is that the BBC should be consistent. Either the BBC should call all organizations involved in terror activities all over the world "rebels" or "terrorists". They ought to avoid their present political gimmick of calling at random only certain groups as "rebels" (even the ones which their own governments have branded as "terrorist") while calling other similar groups straightaway as "terrorists". Else, they are not only deliberately distorting their information but they are badly risking their credibility, if they still have any such thing called "credibility"!

(http://www.island.lk/2007/04/04/midweek1.html)