±«Óătv

My grammatical knowledge stops at “vowel, naming word”, but sometimes not getting over technical isn’t all bad?

Kidnapped or Captured?

The latter implies an official stamp of approval, the former doesn’t. The problem is that different people have different views on what the ±«Óătv should approve. I’d suggest trying to use plain language

‘take against their will’
‘taken against their will at gunpoint’
‘armed forces opposed to the officially recognised government’

Oh, I see. Because an item generates a lot of comment and it's not all the same, all the people writing in must be kooks with political axes to grind and/or nerdish pedants. Yet a public broadcaster has the duty to get it right. Simply saying that matters are controversial or that language is jolly complicated doesn't get one off the hook, nor does it make one neutral. I'm afraid that it's a constant challenge which one can't get out of by shrugging one's shoulders. The ±«Óătv and its college are amply funded out of a tax on watching (not necessarily ±«Óătv) telly. Let them strain for clarity and objectivity without excuses or taking the mick out of their benefactors.

What a load of mealy mouthed rubbish. Of course you can define some words and set some standards which the whole of the ±«Óătv should use. If someone walks into a cafĂ© and blows up innocent people he is a terrorist, no matter what the ideology he represents. Why does the ±«Óătv feel the need to show equivalence between good and evil? Why does the ±«Óătv, funded by tax raised from British citizens, have to be impartial in its reporting of such evil acts? I can imagine the same arguments being raised during the second world war, with equal air time given to Lord Haw Haw just as it was given to the leader of the Taliban on the ±«Óătv recently.

The problem is not what words you use it is the fact that you persistently use them in strange ways. You claim not to use 'kidnapped' for soldiers - you say you always use 'captured' for soldiers and 'detained' for politicians etc.

Interestingly you HAVE used 'kidnapped' for the British officer kidnapped by the Maoists in Nepal and also for those British soldiers involved in Sierra Leone yet you refuse to use it for the soldier 'kidnapped' from ISRAELI territory...I wonder why? And why do ±«Óătv reports keep claiming he was taken in Gaza when he was not?

You cannot have it both ways and THAT is why many people are angry and fed up with the ±«Óătv's semantics and the way you sometimes omit pertinent facts that lend a whole new light to the story for example reporting (and implying morale is low - wrong!) about 6 British soldiers dying in Afghanistan yet forgetting to mention the 700 Taliban killed since May!....

Thank God we can go elsewhere in the world to Germany or the US or Australia for news reporting! They might be as biased but we can take all their stories and produce a middle view - we can't do that with the ±«Óătv when they report on Israel for example.

Having read the top ten comments on the blog about language, it's easy to see how language is a difficult thing to prescribe rules for. For instance, I would say 'militant' sums up Palestinian fighters quite well, as the Palestinians don't have a military to fight on their behalf. Militant to me suggests people acting in the absence of a military. That may not be the definition, but language is not just about definition, but inference and peotry and I think the ±«Óătv does a very good job of treading the fine line. Keep it up!

Of course every ±«Óătv journalist cannot be forced to use, or not to use, particular words. However it is reasonable to expect that they will follow the rules of grammar and it is a sad day if the editor of the ±«Óătv College of Journalism thinks otherwise.

It is wrong, for example, to use a plural verb form with a singular collective noun, as is now commonplace in all television reporting. This is junior school English, or plainly should be if it is no longer. It is no more pedantic to notice bad grammar than it is correct to use it.

I must say - this article is fascinating. It is most of interest to me due to my current English Literature study of 1984, and the concept of "Newspeak" being created. Just remember - when you decide a stylistic point in your college of journalism - your decisions, could well enter the nation's subconsious by virtue of your choices, and the repitition of those choices by newsreaders across the ±«Óătv News' output. Keep up the good work!

You are not afraid to use the word "terrorism" -- even in a headline -- if the victims are not Israeli.

You talk to terror victims, show their faces and tell their stories in extensive fashion -- if the victims are not Israeli.

Your reporters don't complain about injustice to oppressed people when talking about attrocities committed by terrorists -- if the victims are not Israeli.

But it's very clear what John was doing in his blog post. He was trying to claim that Gaza was different. Gaza was special. Gaza needed extra sensitivity, unlike any other corner of this combative, screwed-up globe.

Now why is that?

Ahh yes. Because it's important not to call a terrorist a terrorist, if the victims are Israeli.

Bye guys.

Hi Kevin

I hope the ±«Óătv's College of Journalism will not only hone the professional skills of its students but also provide them with a basic grounding in English grammar - something evidently lacking from most school curriculums.

Far too many ±«Óătv journalists and broadcasters seem unable to distinguish between singular and plural, and use the word "is" instead of "are".

If the ±«Óătv would just stop de facto banning the word terrorist for any atrocity targetting civilians east of Egypt, that would be a great help.

You suggest it is the listeners who are pedants. I suggest it is the ±«Óătv journalists avoiding certain words like the plague who are the real pedants. It is pitiful to see all the weasel words, all the use of scare quotes. The Mumbai bombings were a prime example - just look at the website articles. The T word is hardly ever used except as a quote from an Indian minister or a police officer. How can the ±«Óătv swallow (under pressure, as you know) the use of the T word to describe train bombings in London, but refuse to use it for Indians killed. Seems pretty insuilting to the Indians, some would say.

And Jeremy Bowen's crowd always avoid the T word when describing hamas and Hezbollah. There is no proper reason - except moral equivocation and ±«Óătv pedantry.

"There are 8,500 journalists in the ±«Óătv"

What do they all do?

To put the above in proportion the National Union of Journalists "among the biggest and best-established journalists' unions in the world" has only 35000 members who "cover the whole range of editorial work – staff and freelance, writers and reporters, editors and sub-editors, photographers and illustrators, working in broadcasting, newspapers, magazines, books, on the internet and in public relations."

Several national independant broadcasting networks.
Numerous independant local radio stations.
Ten national newspapers.
Several regional newspapers.
Hundreds of local newspapers.
A huge magazine publishing industry.
Etc
Etc

35000 NUJ members.

The ±«Óătv 8500 journalists.

Just a tad disproportionate?

Consider the unfixed language. If the language in us is unfixed then what is it that makes us take one or the other position when reporting on or describing a scene or situation?
Emotion? A sound basis for consideration, I would think.
And if emotion, then surely our verbalising of such emotion would be from a fixed source of such emotion. It follows that language has a pre-considered emotive base, and as such could be said to be a fixed position.
To achieve a robust and cross sectional opinion base from a news media, such as the ±«Óătv for instance, would therefore require broad selection of personnel who have been employed purely on their emotional statii.
And the editor who can manage such a scenario should be a Nobel Prize contender.
Des Currie

Will the ±«Óătv College of Journalism ensure that all who pass through it's programme who report on world affairs, on war, on conflicts, on politics, and those who edit their reports, and read them, and present them, know the contents, the history and the significance of the Geneva conventions, and similar international law? It seems, from the astounding ignorance too often displayed, the lack of relevant questions asked of those apparently violating that law, an area of essential knowledge for journalists not taught elewhere in the UK.

"For instance, I would say 'militant' sums up Palestinian fighters quite well, as the Palestinians don't have a military to fight on their behalf. Militant to me suggests people acting in the absence of a military"

"Militants" would wear military uniform, fight against the opposing military and wouldn't target civilians. The Palestinian terrorists do not fall into any of these categories.

In Britain it has been possible for some years to "agree" a budget or policy whereas in the United States one has to agree on (or with) one. On the other hand, one can "grow" the economy in America but not in Britain. Generally speaking, usage is more conservative in Britain but by no means in all respects.

Hello Kevin... where's my reply?

This article is an example of the way that your reporters frequently trivialize threats and violence against Israelis and Jews, while highlighting the discomfort that Israeli responses causes for other people. It's also an example of shoddy journalism.

1. "Different Arab peoples" are NOT vying to become Israel's #1 enemy. What is happening is that different TERROR GROUPS are vying for points. Many Lebanese and other Arabs would resent Nick's characterization.

2. The report counts Lebanese casualties, but doesn't even mention that there have been Israeli casualties -- which is very typical of the ±«Óătv in modern times.

3. The report trivializes Qassams. Qassams are flying bombs packed with explosives and shrapnel. Nick KNOWS what Qassams do to a human body. He knows that Hamas shoots them at schools in Sderot, intending to murder kids. Ask Sderot residents if they are "needled" or if they are terrified for the lives of their children. Note that the defense minister of Israel lives in Sderot.

4. The report misconstrues Israel's motives: artillery, invasion, kidnapping and rockets were not "national insults". They are plainly, simply acts of war. Israel is treating them that way. So would anybody else. Most countries would show FAR less restraint than Israel has.

5. Israel isn't a "giant." Characterizing it as such deliberately demonizes Israel, dehumanizes the very human Israelis who are living in bomb shelters or hospitals right now, trivializes harm to them and positions Israel as the aggressor, whereas Hizballah was and is guilty of unprovoked aggression. It consciously creates a David-vs-Goliath impact.

6. "..78%..a little more" Did Nick REALLY need to add this misleading bit of propaganda into this article? Mandate Palestine was divided into Israel (12%) and Arab countries (Jordan and Palestine -- 88%), and Israel is also home to Israeli Arabs and Druze. The neighboring countries attacked Israel and tried to grab the whole thing for themselves several times, but failed. But so what? Why is this relevant to this specific story? What does this have to do with Hizballah's actions? I noticed that he doesn't mention the completely indefensible Shebaa Farms stuff that HA uses to excuse its thuggish existence. The remainder of the column wanders off his topic into a general attack on Israel.

7. "Tunnels and Fences" section contains various truths and spin, but is largely a one-sided presentation attempting to justify the arguments of one side. No attempt is made to "balance" this by presenting the other side's views. Not in this article. And virtually never on ±«Óătv. Assume we're naive and don't know. Most people who read/watch/listen don't. But they do hear you repeat this stuff over and over again.

8. Your reporter aligns himself with the "resentment" of Palestinians. Yes, he does it carefully, but unless you simply don't want to see it, this article rather unambiguously displays a strong personal bias. Your reporter also tries to imply that the murderous behavior of Islamists is Israel's fault. This is a BS argument. Many movements for the oppressed have won national independence without wedding themselves irrevocably to terrorism.

9. Your sidebar lists every action taken in Lebanon as an Israeli initiative, wheras in each case the action was precipitated by attacks from Lebanon. List the aggression from the north, or don't do this at all. Again, you list civilians killed in Israel responses, but you don't mention people killed by Hizballah/PFLP/Fatah/etc. Mention both, or mention neither. If you erred on both sides regularly, I would not mention this. But you PERSISTENTLY, CONSISTENTLY err only on one side. Can you explain that?

10. There are a lot of reasons why terror groups engage in the I'm-the-biggest-****-on-the-block behavior, but the column discusses NONE of them. How much money and support does Hizballah get from Syria for being Israel's enemy? How much does it pass on to Palestinian Islamic Jihad for attacks on Gaza border crossings (whose purpose is to help Palestinians reach employment or export goods)? Why is the party that controls the PA run from Damascus instead of Ramallah or Gaza, and how does that affect this tendency to attack Israel when Lebanon/Gaza can least afford it? What REALLY happens to the popularity of Islamic Jihad, or Hamas, or Fatah, or Hizballah when it carries out an act of terror? Does it grow? Shrink? Mix? What motivates these decisions about timing REALLY? To what extent are Hamas gunmen true believers, versus unemployed young men who want a stable paycheck and bad prospects who will believe whatever they must in order to find work? What are the connections between Hamas and Hizballah? Why does Islamic Jihad have different "limits" than Hamas? How does Israel perceive the different groups? How do they perceive each other? Where does each have popular support? What individuals in the terror groups make the DECISION that the competition for "anti-Israel points" is more important than building a Palestinian economy? The gunmen on the street? The bombmakers in the basement? The PA parliamentarians? Secretive "military" leaders? The bankrollers? The PA press? Bashar al-Assad? Why is it so important to each of them? Ego? Money? Power? Hatred? Are Islamist groups REALLY as simplistic and single-minded as your correspondent thinks, or does Hizballah mayyyyyyybe have other motives than sympathy for oppressed Palestinians when it invades Israel, kills some Jews and Druze, launches missiles at Haifa and injures a bunch of Israelis (including Israeli Arabs)?

Your correspondent explores NONE of the reasons why terror organizations vie for popularity by attacking Israel. Instead, he devotes his "report" to trotting out the same tired slant that we see in your mideast articles every week.

Any chance "one" of those 8,500 journalists can write something on the frontpage of the ±«Óătv's sport section of the website about how the GB Women's Softball Team is doing in the World Cup this week?

Most important thing is in one's mind. The language is neutral, but people are bias. Different views on this very issue have given us the strongest proof of it. Thus, being sensitive in choosing words is of course to be reminded to every journalist, and keeping a clear and critical mind in viewing an issue is also essential.

Maybe reading the different versions of World History from different countries helps improving thinking logics to develop in a more objective way.

Well, I think you do a good job... Does it really matter so much if we call them militants or terrorists? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter after all - its all a matter of perspective.

Some people seem to want to just get at the ±«Óătv for the sake of it. The Middle East has never been a simple issue of attacker and attacked, as such terminology cannot be clear cut.

I'd say avoiding the word terrorist entirely is advisable.

While I appreciate that it is unreasonable to expect the ±«Óătv to exercise total control over anything any one of its many employees may say at any time, is it not similarly unreasonable to expect the DPM to exercise a similar total control over his own myriad employees as John Humphreys recently did?

Either the Government and the ±«Óătv are both fully accountable as public bodies for all their employees or they're not. Take your pick.

Being accountable for a department's output is not the same as controlling every aspect of said output. Micromanaging is hardly likely to work in either case of the DPM's department or ±«Óătv and would defy the point of employing lots of people.

The ±«Óătv has much more output than the DPM's department. The DPM's department will make various press releases and leaflets etc plus a few interviews, not 24 hour a day TV, radio and internet broadcasts...

Sir: 'fine' comment about the use of words is interesting, but I consider the battle lost when ±«Óătv weather forcasters continually refer to 'warmer' or 'colder' temperatures. On the 80/20 basis correct the major errors first !

or ever 'forecasters'. Even I - as an English language pedant - sometimes let zeal overcome correctness !

As an engineer I've always know that that most journalists are members of the 'Flat Earth Society', hence the use of "across" as their only preposition - "through", "thoughout" and "over" having disapeared from their dictionaries. It is hence not difficult to understand why they have (nearly) all adopted the language of the gutters of American jounalism.
As an excercise ±«Óătv editors should, for one month ban the use of "across", that 'Do It All' word "focus", "target" (as a verb or adjective) and "their" for the singular, then, perhaps, we would have the chance of hearing a ±«Óătv presenter speaking ENGLISH for a change.

Wow, words and their mechanics. I am not a language expert but I can detect the difference between the enormous effort made and acquired to have the knowledge of words to build a mechanical picture of a story so that the writer here, can claim there is no "bias" vs. that of having the human knowledge of good and evil, just and unjust, fair and unfair and reporting its truth to the human being (reader). This guys explanation of language is nothing more than mental gymnastics attempting to toot his own horn at the cost of truth and reality. He tries to be "amoral" (unbiased) at the expense of morality and humanity. He cut the six inches that separte his heart from his mind to call it "unbiased". Here, he is all mind (mechanical) and wants us to only see his incredible grasp on language. A way overly intellectualization to make what touches the human soul into nothing but a mechanical opportunity to toot his own horn. I read ±«Óătv everyday and compare it with multiple other news sites to get the truth. Truth rarely exists on this site as there are too many "mechanical" writers here who hate the idea of justice and morality.Yes I call this guy extrremely "Biased". A nias he justifies through his own Intellect!