> So actually it is a stance of the BBC not to condem it.
I think you missed the whole point.
The article states in no uncertain terms that "Our business is to present our audiences with the facts, and let them make up their own minds."
This goes against the use of loaded terms like "terrorist" because "Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally."
Not using a loaded term to describe something does not mean "they condone it".
There was a time when journalists were expected to present you with the facts and left you to think for yourself and make up your mind. It seems you have something against the latter.
People taking a stance based on presented facts of having a opinion based on them because of complete or incomplete information also fine. But it defeats the purpose of having the definition in the first place. I am referring to the using violence against non-combatants mostly civilians with the aim of spreading fear. Never have I said anything of being pro whomever, only condemming the act with the intention of spreading fear. Just like there is fear of US dropping bombs on afgan houses as it is to having planes flying into buildings. It is the behavior not the party who does it.
I'll not argue your point, but I think the IMO does illustrate why the BBC is absolutely right to avoid using the term. Various governments, organisations, people try to define terrorism, but always meet the response "well, didn't the USA do that in Vietnam" or "didn't the British do that in Ireland", and they did. So now it is generally left undefined, or defined by diktat (see "it is a fact of law" mentioned above). In other words it is a yah-boo word, it means "use violence that I disapprove of", it has no place in reporting.
> Never have I said anything of being pro whomever, only condemming the act with the intention of spreading fear.
You've tried to accuse a journalism organization of condoning terrorism just because they explained why in general, due to the organization's founding principles, they refuse to use loaded words.
You've repeatedly missed their point, and unwittingly you're making their point as well.
Ok perhaps I did, maybe I was wrong with the example of the bbc. Other news outlets consistently make use of superlatives and after browsing other articles I must admit I didnt find any on their site. And with my initial post I didnt say they condoned it. I said it is almost like they condone it. These carefull use of words where to have the possibility of saving face and it is the same for journalism. Fact is most countries have defined Hamas as a terrorist organisation as is the UK even before these events. These events fit the general definition of terrorism is it not? I understand they are also more carefull now with their words because of the fine balance. I only argue I see it differently and contest their frame.
I think you missed the whole point.
The article states in no uncertain terms that "Our business is to present our audiences with the facts, and let them make up their own minds."
This goes against the use of loaded terms like "terrorist" because "Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally."
Not using a loaded term to describe something does not mean "they condone it".
There was a time when journalists were expected to present you with the facts and left you to think for yourself and make up your mind. It seems you have something against the latter.