BBC Language Distorts Facts

In his 1946 essay, "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell famously decried the use of language by bureaucrats, politicians and corporations to obfuscate and distort reality. The media are not far behind: Now the BBC, in a misguided attempt at even-handed journalism, has reached new heights in the art of euphemism. What would it take to get the media to call a spade a spade?

The way we use language has both intended and unintended consequences. Take the famous term "wardrobe malfunction" with which Justin Timberlake enriched the English language after Janet Jackson accidentally (or deliberately) exposed her breast. 

When test subjects watched a video of the infamous incident, they watched identical videos, with one exception.

One group watched a video where the final sentence described Janet Jackson as actor 
("ripped her dress"), the other group watched the same video, but with the final sentence naming no acting person ("the dress ripped").

Despite the fact that both groups had seen the same video, language played a role: On average, the group who had seen the video with the active language accused Timberlake more and demanded a 53% higher fine for him than the group who had seen the passive language. 

Even our 6-year-old daughter has mastered the art of using language to hide responsibility when she claims, "the spaghetti sauce came onto my T-shirt" instead of "I put the spaghetti sauce on my T-shirt."

George Orwell observed already 71 years ago how language can be instrumentalized for political gain. It was right after World War II, and the Nazis had invented harmless terms like "concentration camp" instead of death camp.

But the Allies had also used euphemisms such as "defense ministry" (instead of war ministry) or "fell" (in battle, instead of "died"). 

Today this has become even worse. We read sanitized language about "innovative examination methods" (for torture and waterboarding) or "collateral damage" (for killing civilians). 

The same happens in corporations that use terms like "downsizing" or "synergies" (for firing people)  or "creative bookkeeping" (for cheating or stealing) or "coaching" (for yelling at a colleague) or "feedback" (for reprimanding). The list goes on. 

Now the BBC has joined the ranks of the euphemizers (see video). 

After Muhammad Halabi, a Palestinian, recently attacked and killed Nehemiah Lavi, a father of seven, and Aaron Benita, a father of two, in Jerusalem's Old City, and wounded Benita's wife and baby, he was killed by Israeli security forces in a shootout. 

These are the facts. How did the BBC report the story?

The initial headline on the BBC story was: “Palestinian shot dead after Jerusalem attack kills two.”

The main focus of the headline was the death of the Palestinian terrorist who was “shot dead,” portraying his death as an unrelated event, and branding him as a victim.

There was no mention of his heinous actions. And “Jerusalem” cannot attack and cannot kill two.

“Disturbing, yes. Surprising, no,” Honest Reporting, a media watchdog, stated. “The BBC has a history of publishing headlines where Palestinian terrorists are sanitized to the point that inanimate objects such as bulldozers are held responsible for killing Israelis.”

American Jewish journalist Jeffrey Goldberg commented on the headline on Twitter: “To be fair, it takes a great deal of creativity to come up with headlines like this one.”

(The BBC later changed its headline to the more accurate “Jerusalem: Palestinian kills two Israelis in Old City.” It did not issue any apology, as is the custom in such cases.)

The BBC is not alone. The Washington Post stated, “Palestinian is killed after fatal attack.” Qatari-based Al Jazeera similarly phrased a Twitter tweet as, “Palestinian shot dead after fatal stabbing in Jerusalem; 2 Israeli victims also killed.”

(Unlike the BBC, Al Jazeera apologized In an editor’s note after receiving complaints. “Many people in our audience have pointed out that the tweet appears to minimize the killings of the Israeli victims and leaves out the context that the Palestinian man was their attacker. This criticism is valid and we regret the wording of a tweet written under the pressure of breaking news. The story on the site was briefly headlined with similar wording, which we amended in an update.”)

On 7 October, the Huffington Post ran an article titled, “Undercover Gunmen Open Fire At Palestinian Stone-Throwers,” and strongly implied that the IDF soldiers were responsible for inciting the stone-throwing despite weeks of such attacks.

The UK’s Daily Mail told its readers, “Amateur footage shows Palestinian woman executed in Afula” in reporting on an October 9 terrorist attack in which an Arab-Israeli woman from Nazareth attempted to stab an IDF soldier at a bus station in Afula.

She was stopped when police officers shot her, and was evacuated to the hospital in moderate condition. 

(The amateur footage in question clearly shows that she was not killed, leading the Daily Mail to change “executed” to “shot,” but otherwise leave the headline intact.)

Whether or not Palestinians hold legitimate grievances is not the issue. Knifing down a stranger who did not attack you is unacceptable under any circumstances.

But despite dozens of stabbing attacks against Israelis, western media outlets refuse to acknowledge the culpability of Palestinian terrorists. Instead, leading news outlets frame each attack as Israeli security forces shooting Palestinians while Israelis are killed by unnamed assailants.

The media's attempt to report "objectively" is noble. But facts are facts. 

What do you say? How can we stop the euphemizing language, not only in the media but also in government and corporations? I look forward to your comments, here or on my blog http://thomaszweifel.blogspot.com/.

Dr. Thomas D. Zweifel is a strategy & performance expert and coach for leaders of Global 1000 companies. His book Communicate or Die: Getting Results Through Speaking and Listening (also available in French and German) explores how managers can lead effectively through language.