Al Jazeera’s ‘attackers’
Sir: A shop assistant who is offhand is readily described as ‘rude’; the person who puts his feet on a train seat attracts the word ‘lout’; similarly, a threatening, vomiting drunk in the street earns the label of ‘yob’ or ‘thug’, depending on the degree of viciousness.
Yet, as Rani Singh records (Diary, 6 December), the largely BBC-trained journalists at Al Jazeera English TV had a problem deciding what to call those who took anti-social behaviour to its bestial depths, methodically massacring the innocents of Mumbai. It should be emphasised that their victims were not caught up on the sidelines of some military engagement, but pumped with bullets and shredded by shrapnel simply because they happened to be people.
You can’t get more antisocial than depriving perfectly innocent strangers of life and limb, devastating whole families in an orgy of blood-letting as coffees were sipped, trains queued for and friends chatted. But, as Rani Singh noted, after much debate over whether to use the term ‘militant’ or ‘terrorist’, the fearless hacks at Al Jazeera opted for ‘attacker’.
Time for Al Jazeera and similar-minded outfits, including the BBC, to recalibrate their moral compasses. The alternative is to succumb to a moral relativism that will neuter, confuse and ultimately paralyse the planet.
Maurice Jones
Waterfoot, Lancashire
Previous page
