Abstract
Words are funny. For some people, one word could be inspiring; for others, the same word could hold a completely different meaning. In a world where language can and has incited wars, we — particularly those who influence perceptions — must find words that are common, that explain provocative situations fairly and accurately.
When a decade of violence in the Balkans culminated in the conflict over Kosovo's quest for independence from what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Vienna-based International Press Institute published a book analysing media coverage of the Kosovo war. The Kosovo News and Propaganda War is primarily a collection of articles by respected journalists from across the globe who sought to cover the conflict fairly and accurately, and felt captured in the all-powerful propaganda machinery put in place by the parties in the conflict.
NATO's decision to intervene was made on the basis that the regime of the Yugoslav president, Slobodan Miloŝević, was violating the rights of the Kosovo Albanian minority, turning a local territorial dispute into an international ideological one. With NATO's colossal power lined up against a Yugoslavia damaged by years of war and sanctions, the military outcome was clear from the onset. But, as the IPI book notes, NATO knew that “the battle could be won and lost in the trenches of public opinion”. Winning the propaganda war became the decisive factor.
The Miloŝević regime sought to influence public opinion by censorship, blocking information through the introduction of restrictive legislation. Operating in a more democratic environment, NATO relied on the skills of some of the world's best spin doctors to develop rhetoric — partially lies and distorted facts — built on a careful selection of words and terms that appeared innocent and neutral to a distracted audience. The alliance succeeded in associating positive feelings about NATO's three-month military campaign, which mainly involved US-led bombing raids against Yugoslav forces and non-military targets in Serbia, while offering a negative connotation to anything related to the enemy.
“Language is the way we interact and communicate so, naturally, the means of communication and the conceptual background that's behind it, which is more important, are used to try to shape attitudes and opinions, and induce conformity and subordination. Not surprisingly, it was created in the more democratic societies,” commented U.S. linguist Noam Chomsky in a 2003 interview with Z Magazine, pointing out the efficacy of speech, rather than censorship thereof, to shape public opinion.
The term “collateral damage” was used to illustrate the killing of civilians in what was otherwise presented by NATO as a sanitised conflict hitting solely military targets. There was other sanitised language, generated by spin doctors and too often adopted by journalists covering the conflict without much reflection on its intrinsic meaning and purpose.
In a column looking at the media coverage of the Kosovo conflict published in IPI's The Kosovo News and Propaganda War, the U.S. media analyst and author, Norman Solomon, spoke about the retired Marine Corps general, Richard Neal, then a CNN military analyst, who “bedazzled a fawning anchor with euphemisms like ‘neutralise’, ‘take out’ and ‘collateral damage’.” “Just what the spin doctors ordered,” Solomon added.
IPI's 1999 book aimed to raise awareness about the challenges that journalists faced in covering the Kosovo conflict, not only in order to get accurate information but also to navigate the sea of propaganda with sufficient knowledge of the issues to be able to separate the hype from facts. This is precisely the goal of a new IPI publication, Use with Care: A Reporter's Glossary of Loaded Language in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. It seeks to help journalists cover one of the most complex, controversial news stories of our time.
The political connotation that words such as “Palestine”, “Palestinian territories”, “occupied Palestinian territories”, “West Bank and Gaza”, “Judea and Samaria” have gained throughout history is so complex that few journalists outside the region are entirely familiar with them. Yet these words are so loaded that more sensitive audiences would immediately recognise the ideological bent of the media outlet or the journalist. “Indeed, there are references that might cause some people to just shut down and stop listening or reading,” Naomi Hunt, editor of Use with Care, writes in the introduction of the book.
The book is not the outcome of an academic or theoretical exercise, but an attempt to promote more professional and balanced journalism by collecting and sharing the knowledge of the Israeli and Palestinian journalists who helped draft the publication. It is neither comprehensive nor exhaustive, but it should represent a starting point for those who aim at fairness.
Although the process of analysing loaded terms commonly used in the coverage of the conflict was a strenuous, upsetting and, at times, painful exercise for the authors, possibly the most challenging part was identifying alternative and more neutral terms. Throughout the process, as we realised that there were no reasonable alternatives for some loaded words, we also had to come to terms with the limits of good journalism and ask ourselves to what extent the coverage of a conflict becomes an integral part of the conflict itself.
Among the many positive reviews Use with Care has received, there has also been criticism of it. The respected Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, called it a “useless reporter's glossary”, referring to its belief that “the language used by journalists covering the conflict is as visceral and bloody as the conflict itself”. In the words of the paper: “No handbook is going to change that fact.”
It is a sad but, we believe, astute assessment of a conflict that has been going on for too many years. The choice of language is a political one and the decision by many journalists and media outlets to use loaded terms is one they have taken with perfect awareness of the reactions they will generate from their audiences. We also believe this to be true for some journalists in the region.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has global implications and so does its coverage. I am certain that the use of particular terms by the majority of journalists across the world is not the expression of an ideological position, but the outcome of a copycat exercise, with little understanding of the connotation of the words used. The problem is that sensitive audiences will react nevertheless, no matter if the editorial process was a conscious one based on knowledge or the outcome of a damaging disregard for the complexity that we often encounter in our profession. The IPI glossary seeks to help defuse some of the tension by providing support to those reporters who strive for fairness and accuracy.