Bipartisan House Coalition Urges AP to Change Stylebook Rule Advising Against ‘Terrorist’ Term for Hamas
“The decision by the AP to avoid using terms such as ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ due to their perceived politicization is deeply unsettling.”
For several decades now, the Associated Press Stylebook has become the gold standard among many mainstream media organizations for, among other things, guidance on terminology that they suggest journalists should either use or avoid using when covering stories.
Unfortunately, this has meant that these same outlets over the years have willingly subjected themselves to falling in line with the AP‘s politically motivated evolution on the use of words like “abortion,” “riots,” “man” and “woman,” and even “the,” an evolution that conveniently almost always seems to match up with whatever Democrats and their affiliated special interest groups happen to be calling for at any given time.
As Legal Insurrection reported in October, the AP was, per their Israel-Hamas Topical Guide, only allowing their reporters to refer to Hamas terrorists as “militants,” “fighters,” “attackers,” or “combatants” despite confirmed reports of the atrocities committed against 1,400 Israeli civilians, including kidnapping, torture, rape, murder, and the beheading of infants.
Their rationale was that the terms “terrorist” and “terrorism” had become politicized and they wanted to avoid being seen as politicizing the war:
The terms terrorism and terrorist have become politicized, and often are applied inconsistently. Because they can be used to label such a wide range of actions and events, and because the debate around them is so intense, detailing what happened is more precise and better serves audiences.
Therefore, the AP is not using the terms for specific actions or groups, other than in direct quotations or when attributed to authorities or others. Instead, we describe specific atrocities, massacres, bombings, assassinations and other such actions.
Predictably, the AP‘s guidance on the terms mirrored that of the New York Times, the BBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and other outlets, with the BBC in particular saying “terrorism” was a “loaded word” and that it was not their “job to tell people who to support and who to condemn – who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.”
Except one doesn’t have to declare support for one side or the other in order to objectively call out terrorism for what it is, as noted by a bipartisan House coalition that wrote a letter to the AP on Friday, urging them to reverse course on not using the word “terrorist” to describe Hamas terrorists:
The letter, led by Reps. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) and Mike Gallagher (R-WI), states that the lawmakers are “deeply disturbed by the AP’s failure to accurately label Hamas a terrorist organization.” It warns of “potential dangers that may arise” from this guidance.
The lawmakers said that the guidance ignores a definition of terrorism and description of the Hamas attacks provided in the same document.
“The decision by the AP to avoid using terms such as ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ due to their perceived politicization is deeply unsettling,” they wrote. “Mislabeling Hamas undermines journalistic integrity and confuses the public as to the nature of events transpiring in Israel and Gaza. By not accurately labeling Hamas and its continued terroristic actions, we believe the AP inadvertently provides cover for these heinous acts to be accepted.”
That cover, the lawmakers suggested, has the potential to negatively impact Jewish communities and put them in harm’s way:
Failing to accurately describe Hamas as a terrorist organization can result in significant consequences for public perception, online discourse, and even the safety of communities. The ADL’s (Anti-Defamation League) research shows, that between October 7-December 7, there were 2,031 antisemitic incidents in the United States, an average of nearly 34 antisemitic incidents a day since Hamas’ brutal attack. This represents a nearly 337% increase in incidents over the same time period last year.
Further, they also wrote that in the very same guidance the AP gave on refraining from using “terrorist” or “terrorism,” they essentially admitted that Hamas was, by the AP‘s own definition, engaging in terrorism:
In the topical guidance, you note that “calculated use of violence, especially against civilians, to create terror to disrupt and demoralize societies for political ends.” Yet after utilizing this definition at the beginning of the guide, you fail to correctly label the events of October 7 and the individuals who perpetuated this heinous act for what they are, terrorism and terrorists. Your own description of the attacks, states that Hamas “killed hundreds of civilians” yet you incorrectly label these assailants as militants, seemingly in opposition of your own definition.
The lawmakers’ suggestions were for the AP to adopt a more “nuanced” approach to the terms rather than avoiding using them outright:
. . . we urge you to consider the potential implications of the stated guidance within the topical guide and how these assertions can negatively affect the discourse on this issue. We believe that adopting a more nuanced and context-sensitive approach to terminology, rather than an outright avoidance of “terrorism” and “terrorist,” may better serve your mission of accurate and responsible journalism. Why was the topical guidance written in a manner to avoid following current international designations of Hamas as a terrorist organization? And if a change is not imminent, can you explain the rationale as to why?
As I’ve pointed out before, it should be noted for the record that media outlets including the AP have been known to refer to the January 6th rioters as “insurrectionists” and the riots as “terrorism” yet somehow they can’t bring themselves to call actual terrorists out for who and what they are.
It speaks volumes about them and their agendas, and not in a good way.
To read the full letter, click here (PDF).
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I didn’t think AP could do much more to destroy their credibility, I was wrong. I really hate being wrong.
Terrorism is political science term that entered the english language as loan word from the french revolution reign of terror. Public executions chopping off heads with guillotine. It wouldn’t be misapplied for in this case, with the decapitation of babies. Instill terror in population.
How about ‘blood thisty sub human savages’ instead?
What the despicable AP ignores with its dishonest appraisal is that characterizing a Muslim terrorist isn’t “political,” at all — it’s an objective appraisal, based upon the terrorists’ jihadist ideology, their genocidal attacks and barbarism, and, their intentional choice of civilians as preferred targets.
This isn’t complicated, at all.
Two vile and contemptible Muslim supremacists or dhimmi/Dhimmi-crats actually believe that it’s appropriate to refrain from characterizing Muslim terrorists and Islamofascists, as such. This is the type of stupidity and feckless dhimmitude and appeasement of supremacist and totalitarian ideologies that we’re dealing with, folks.
Terrorist is a truthful way of describing guerilla combat waged by deceitful sub-humans.
I agree 100% with the statement that “The decision by the AP to avoid using terms such as ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ due to their perceived politicization is deeply unsettling.”
What deeply troubles me is that the U.S. Congress is using its full government power to tell the press what words they should be using when they report “the news”. This is nothing but government trying to control the press. It’s Orwellian. If the government tells you what words you should use or not use, Is that the world you want to live in? What if the shoe was on the other foot? Do you want a Democratic controlled Congress in the future telling Truth Social, Fox News, LI, or any other news outlet what words they should or should not use? I think not.
I think I have found the mad downvoter. Concern trolling.
“What you mean future, kemosabe?”
“Their rationale was that the terms “terrorist” and “terrorism” had become politicized and they wanted to avoid being seen as politicizing the war”
…an entirely different concern from continually and deliberately referring to the modern sporting rifles on my ranch as “weapons of war flooding our streets with one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the greatest number of people in the shortest amount of time.”
(Unless, of course, they are in police cars, which magically transmogrifies them into “patrol rifles.”)
“Except one doesn’t have to declare support for one side or the other in order to objectively call out terrorism for what it is”
In a post-modern, post-Judaeo-Christian world, “objectively” is a meaningless word.
Agreed. Its all relativism nowadays. Even more so, self branded revolutionaries might not actually flinch at the word “terrorism”. They might even consider it a necessary evil. Absolutely hamas chose their tactics with objective of instilling fear in the minds of israelis, hoping they would be perceived as new kind of foe that couldn’t be conquered by conventional warfare. Hamas almost certainly believes if terrorism is the way to get the desired results then its legitimate tactic. Hamas is willing to risk being branded terrorist, or they wouldn’t have done it.
I don’t understand the kabuki play with the mainstream media dancing around this?
Wilful refusal to call Hamas’ terrorism as terrorism is to legitimise it and present it as at worst morally ambiguous, and possibly legitimate.
By contrast labelling the fiery but most peaceful events of J6 as terrorism delegitimises it and presents it as at best morally ambiguous and possibly unforgivable.
Thus in their ‘quest to avoid politicising such matters’, AP have somehow managed to present the Democrat narrative as apolitical gospel.
Perhaps “AP” actually stands for Always Progressive. That would explain a lot.
Why is Congress trying to dictate to a news organization what words to use or not use?
Dictate? Seriously?
Marxists Propaganda Ministry
They must perpetuate the illusion that we are working for the people?
Congress should not be “urging” AP to do anything. But there are two problems with the AP policy. First, as a USAn company it has a duty of patriotism to the USA and should not be neutral and unbiased. Second, the main problem with the policy is that it’s only applied when convenient to their agenda, and is suddenly forgotten when an attack hits at something AP actually cares about.