The more obvious propaganda often escapes us purely because
we’re so immersed in it. It took an Iraqi acquaintance to make
me realize that, early in the Iraq war, The New York Times and
other papers misused the word “insurgents” for people who
attacked US troops. The term lent our side more legitimacy than
it legally deserved. If Webster’s is to be believed, insurgents
rise up against a recognized authority, and not against an
occupying force that defied international law by invading.
Reuters, which prides itself on being the only true
internationalist news organization, made a point of banning the
word “terrorist” in reference to the September 11 attacks, with
the argument that one man’s murderous extremist is another’s
freedom fighter. The news agency aims to avoid emotive labels so
that customers can come to their own conclusions based on facts.
Reuters’ decision highlights what is, perhaps, an obvious point:
The way conflict stories are written can substantially affect
the public debate around those conf