Author: Andrew Sullivan

Here’s the spin today:

Then there has been a controversy about our use of language – particularly the question of whether the BBC banned the word “terrorist”. There is no ban. It’s true the word is contentious in some contexts on our international services, hence the recommendation that it be employed with care. But we have used and will continue to use the words terror, terrorism and terrorist – as we did in all our flagship bulletins from Thursday.

Here’s the reality:

We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word “terrorist” itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them.

I think the real policy is: terrorism when it kills Londoners; some other euphemism when anyone else – i.e. Iraqis and, especially, Jews – are murdered.

Bruce Hoffman surveys the Israeli experience and asks what they can tell us about how to cope.

With a fever.

A reader emails to show a contrast between al Jazeera’s coverage of the latest atrocity committed by the insurgents in Iraq, and the New York Times’. Al Jazeera’s is tougher on the terrorists! Start with the photos, here and here. AJ also included this devastating quote:

Hassan Muhammad, whose 13-year-old son Alaa also died, said: “Why do they attack our children? They just destroyed one US Humvee, but they killed dozens of our children. What sort of a resistance is this? It’s a crime.”

I’m not criticizing the NYT’s coverage as such. It was fine, if not as graphic as al-Jazeera. But I’m encouraged that al Jazeera is reporting on the popular backlash to terror. Isn’t that a good sign?

“Even though I’m a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.” – president George H.W. Bush, April 26, 1999.

An obviously non-procreative couple gets married in Britain. Worse: “Simon is gifted with the organ.” I anticipate condemnation from Maggie Gallagher, Stanley Kurtz, and Pope Benedict XVI.

Whenever I point out the excrescences of Jerry Falwell on the far right, I am routinely told that he is no longer a member of the religious right in good standing, that he is now a fringe character, that he has no real ties to the Bush administration, that his comments blaming 9/11 on gays and women in America made him persona non grata, and on and on. So why did the White House call Falwell for input on a judicial nominee for the Supreme Court? Just asking.

More nuttiness from the new Vatican.

I recently pointed out a glaring error in a recent Molly Ivins column. To her credit, she has now corrected herself and apologized:

This is a horror. In a column written June 28, I asserted that more Iraqis (civilians) had now been killed in this war than had been killed by Saddam Hussein over his 24-year rule. WRONG. Really, really wrong.

Good for her.

He could be France’s pro-market, pro-U.S. salvation. A new profile is up at Foreign Policy (you have to register but it’s free).