Example of bias

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:03 pm

The center-right government clung to the assumption that the armed Basque separatist group ETA and not the Qaeda terrorist organization was most likely responsible for the attack, although the evidence is confusing and no scenario has been ruled out. -- NYT*This strikes me as biased. First, why point out here that the government is "center-right"? I suppose a center-right government would have political motives for blaming the ETA, but let someone say that; don't suggest it through innuendo. Second, the use of "clung" implies the government is ignoring the evidence. Yet the story goes on to give a few good reasons for thinking that ETA may have been behind the attacks. There's just not enough evidence to say one way or other.***Anyone else think the dropping of the Arabic article before "Qaeda" is pedantic?**

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:58 pm

I admit that I'm hard-pressed to believe that this was not an al-Qaida attack, given that it came exactly 911 days after 9-11 and was far more spectacular than anything the ETA has ever mustered, but you're right -- "clung" is an inappropriate choice.And yes, it's pedantic to say "the Qaeda" if only because it bullheadedly goes against established usage.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:04 pm

By the way, regardless of who murdered those 199 people, I found the following column worthwhile:http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=500365

Bolder1 · **Posted:** Sat Mar 13, 2004 2:05 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
I admit that I'm hard-pressed to believe that this was not an al-Qaida attack, given that it came exactly 911 days after 9-11 and was far more spectacular than anything the ETA has ever mustered, but you're right -- "clung" is an inappropriate choice.And yes, it's pedantic to say "the Qaeda" if only because it bullheadedly goes against established usage.<hr></blockquote>But "Al" means "the," so you couldn't say "the Al Qaeda." We omit "Al" when it follows an article, possessive or modifier.And since when is "established usage" our bible? But "clung" is indeed a bit tendentious. We coulda just said, "These guys are smoking crack if they think it was ETA."

newsdesigner · **Posted:** Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:46 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
The center-right government clung to the assumption that the armed Basque separatist group ETA and not the Qaeda terrorist organization was most likely responsible for the attack, although the evidence is confusing and no scenario has been ruled out. -- NYT*This strikes me as biased. First, why point out here that the government is "center-right"? I suppose a center-right government would have political motives for blaming the ETA, but let someone say that; don't suggest it through innuendo. Second, the use of "clung" implies the government is ignoring the evidence. Yet the story goes on to give a few good reasons for thinking that ETA may have been behind the attacks. There's just not enough evidence to say one way or other.*<hr></blockquote>I had the exact same thoughts about this story when I read it earlier today. They eventually changed "clung" to "continued to assert," but the whole tone is still there.My other peeve of the past few days is perfectly illustrated in this paragraph. Why is Al Qaeda is a "terrorist organization" but ETA is nearly always referred to as a "Basque separatist group"? They've only killed 800+ people the past couple decades.

nstockdale · **Posted:** Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:07 pm

Because few, if any, of them have been Americans.

Rio · **Posted:** Sat Mar 13, 2004 3:59 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Bolder1:
"Al" means "the," so you couldn't say "the Al Qaeda." We omit "Al" when it follows an article, possessive or modifier.<hr></blockquote>Here's a thought: Why not just substitute "the Qaeda terrorist organization" with "al-Qaida"? And note the spelling, those of you who adhere to AP style.

Rio · **Posted:** Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:04 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Nicole Stockdale:
Because few, if any, of them have been Americans.<hr></blockquote>I doubt that that was the reasoning at The Scotsman, Reuters, Bangladesh's The Daily Star and even Xinhua, the paragon of U.S.-centric bias.The question was a good one. Does anyone have a serious answer?[ March 13, 2004: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]

JonScribe · **Posted:** Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:21 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
Here's a thought: Why not just substitute "the Qaeda terrorist organization" with "al-Qaida"? And note the spelling, those of you who adhere to AP style.<hr></blockquote>Agreed. If you're going to translate "al" you might as well translate "Qaida." which I believe means "foundation."

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sat Mar 13, 2004 5:58 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
I doubt that that was the reasoning at The Scotsman, Reuters, Bangladesh's The Daily Star and even Xinhua, the paragon of U.S.-centric bias.The question was a good one. Does anyone have a serious answer?[ March 13, 2004: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]<hr></blockquote>Because most people around the world are familiar with al-Qaida's international campaign of terrorism, whereas outside of Europe, only the most informed people are familiar with the ETA, given that it attacks only Spain. So it's necessary to remind casual news readers what ETA claims to represent.A solution would be to say "terrorists from ETA, a Basque separatist group."

jmcg · **Posted:** Sat Mar 13, 2004 11:17 pm

This thread is getting way too complicated in its dissection of a rather simple new story. "Center-right" provides a context for a readership that otherwise wouldn't have a clue about the leanings of the Spanish government. European governments vary quite widely in their orientation. A leftish government might well react quite differently than the existing government.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sun Mar 14, 2004 12:11 am

Dunno about center-right governments, but I hit a double to right center in Pony League.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:41 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Bumfketeer:
Dunno about center-right governments, but I hit a double to right center in Pony League.<hr></blockquote>Was that a fastball or a hanging curve?

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:48 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
I doubt that that was the reasoning at The Scotsman, Reuters, Bangladesh's The Daily Star and even Xinhua, the paragon of U.S.-centric bias.The question was a good one. Does anyone have a serious answer?[ March 13, 2004: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]<hr></blockquote>Because ETA is not perceived as a threat outside Spain. Nicole's point is well taken.[ March 14, 2004: Message edited by: Paul Wiggins ]

Rio · **Posted:** Mon Mar 15, 2004 2:48 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Paul Wiggins:
Because ETA is not perceived as a threat outside Spain. Nicole's point is well taken.<hr></blockquote>The first sentence is a reasonable answer to the question "Why is Al Qaeda is a 'terrorist organization' but ETA is nearly always referred to as a 'Basque separatist group'?" I'm not sure though that the term "terrorist group" is reserved for such operations that operate in only one country. (How are they referring to the PLO these days?) Matthew Grieco's answer was good too.Paul, given the first half of your post, I fail to see how you can follow that up with "Nicole's point is well-taken." You also believe then that the ETA is not called a "terrorist group" because few, if any, of its victims were Americans?

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Mon Mar 15, 2004 12:13 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jmcg:
"Center-right" provides a context for a readership that otherwise wouldn't have a clue about the leanings of the Spanish government. European governments vary quite widely in their orientation. A leftish government might well react quite differently than the existing government.<hr></blockquote>
There's nothing wrong with pointing out that the government is "center-right," but the context in which it was done was inappropriate.

larepublica · **Posted:** Mon Mar 15, 2004 1:11 pm

I agree that the Times should have come up with a better term than "clung" but, truth be told, a high school prankster sets off a barrel bomb (a type of firecracker) in a garbage can in Spain and the Partido Popular pundits are quickly ranting on TV that it was ETA. From the moment I heard of these bombings, I thought "this does not sound like ETA" Why? Having talked with etarras (as ETA members are known), I do not think they are capable of the level of coordination shown in Madrid. Also, the target was not what ETA attacks. Their bombings and assasinations are usually directed at a specific "targets", not random civilians. And then there is the issue of why ETA on the eve of elections would want to galvanize public support in favor of the political party that got their political wing banned from standing for office. It didnÂ´t make sense to try and blame ETA in the first place and when all evidence started pointing to it not being ETA it was rather desperate of the PP government to keep insisting it was ETA. Spainish voters, it seems, saw it that way.
ETA is fighting not for destruction of a society, as al-Qaeda is, but for the creation of what it considers a "nation." That may be the reason behind refering to one as terrorist and the other as sepratist. But as Gadaffi (I know, but there are about 100 spellings of his name, too) once said "One manÂ´s terrorist is another manÂ´s freedom fighter."[ March 16, 2004: Message edited by: larepublica ]

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:53 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:

Paul, given the first half of your post, I fail to see how you can follow that up with "Nicole's point is well-taken." You also believe then that the ETA is not called a "terrorist group" because few, if any, of its victims were Americans?<hr></blockquote>
Sorry, wrong attribution I meant the preceding post from newsdesigner.com was well taken.
That post read: .My other peeve of the past few days is perfectly illustrated in this paragraph. Why is Al Qaeda is a "terrorist organization" but ETA is nearly always referred to as a "Basque separatist group"? They've only killed 800+ people the past couple decades.
Memo to self: be more focused.Ps: I had similar thoughts when interviewing people from SWAPO, the PLO, ANC, PAC and Fretilin in the mid 1980s. Its notable that they all now have a place at government tables to varying degrees. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The way round it was not to shy away from what they had done.[ March 15, 2004: Message edited by: Paul Wiggins ]

Rio · **Posted:** Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:04 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by larepublica:
[A]s Gadaffi ... once said "One manÂ´s terrorist is another manÂ´s freedom fighter."<hr></blockquote>I believe that notorious quote originated from Stephen Jukes, Reuters' global director of news. Shortly after 9/11, Jukes sent a memo saying that the word "terrorist" was not to be used to describe the 9/11 terrorists because "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."I would find it extremely interesting if Qaddafi said it first.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:17 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
I believe that notorious quote originated from Stephen Jukes, Reuters' global director of news. Shortly after 9/11, Jukes sent a memo saying that the word "terrorist" was not to be used to describe the 9/11 terrorists because "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."I would find it extremely interesting if Qaddafi said it first.<hr></blockquote>Dates at least back to the 1980s when I was doing pol sci. I don't agree with that memo. Perhaps someone could confirm whther this post I have seen elsewhere is accurate ....
Title 22 US Code, Section 2656f(d) (d) Definitions As used in this section - (1) the term international terrorism means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country; (2) the term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; and (3) the term terrorist group means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism. [ March 16, 2004: Message edited by: Paul Wiggins ]

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Tue Mar 16, 2004 11:20 am

I took some heat on my desk after the USS Cole bombing for insisting that, as an attack on a military target, it should not be referred to as a terrorist attack, even though it was 1) an indisputably reprehensible attack and 2) committed by people from a known terrorist organization. I stand by that -- the word "terrorism" loses its important meaning if we start applying it to attacks on military targets just because those attacks are carried out by radical Islamists.I concur with the definition of "terrorism" in the United States Code cited by Paul.(And, I should add, I checked LexisNexis and verified that Paul's citation is verbatim)[ March 16, 2004: Message edited by: Matthew Grieco ]

ramblerdan · **Posted:** Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:07 pm

Turning back to one of the multiple paths of this thread ... Of course it's pedantic to say "the Quaeda." We don't translate prepositions an articles in proper names (de, la, von, etc.), and we don't translate the article "hoi" in "hoi polloi." Translate both or neither: "A report in Le Monde," or "a report in The World," but not "a report in The Monde."[ March 21, 2004: Message edited by: ramblerdan ]

Testy Copy Editors

Example of bias

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links