Where standard newspaper language fails to convey what matters most

Since many of the doctors in the terrorist cell are from India, the Times of London is referring to them and to other suspects in the case as “Indians” instead of as “Muslims.” Thus, the Times reports, “Detectives have seized computer files and questioned five doctors of Indian background. Four doctors have been released.” But if their place of birth or their place of residence is the most distinguishing thing about terrorists and terror suspects, why not just refer to them as the “London doctors,” or the “Glasgow doctors”? That’s the way we do it in the States, after all. Thus a Muslim terrorist who arrived in the U.S. from Jordan or Pakistan three years ago becomes in newspaper accounts simply a “Brooklyn man,” or a “Jersey City man,” making it sound as though he’s lived in Jersey City all his life. By reducing him to his current legal residence, the designation removes from the individual the most significant fact about him, that he is a Muslim. This liberal, neutral approach to describing people may be appropriate when we are talking about Americans who share basic commonalities and whom we can treat as individuals without regard to their origin and background. The same fair-minded liberal approach, when applied to followers of a religion that commands them to wage Holy War on us, becomes absurd.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 07, 2007 11:08 AM | Send