[Peace] letter to WILL about the use of "terrorist"

[Danielle Chynoweth]

I just send WILL the letter copied below.  I urge community members to act
as watchdogs of all media and really impress upon them their journalistic
responsibilities at a time of war.

danielle

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:31:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Danielle Chynoweth <chyn at che.onthejob.net>
To: dsimeone at uiuc.edu
Cc: kawa at uiuc.edu, tgrogers at uiuc.edu
Subject: input about this morning's news

Dear Dan, Tom, and Ali -

I am an avid listener of WILL AM.  I wake up to the local news, listen to
Focus 580, and go to bed to the BCC.  WILL is a breath of fresh air in the
midst of what passes as "news" on commercial radio and TV.  Thank you for
your typically high journalistic standards.

There are times, though, when your journalism markedly detours from these
standards.  This morning's example was so flagrant I feel the need to call
your attention to it.

Ali Kawa read a story with the lead: "Ecoterrorists being sought by
authorities in Indiana."

First off, the terms "terrorist"  and "ecoterrorist"  are extremely
politicized words.  The term "terrorist" should be used very carefully by
journalists.  At a time when such a word is being used to violate the
civil liberties of both american citizens and residents, the word
"terrorist" should be handled in the same way journalists now handle
mudslinging words such as "facist" or "communist."  Instead of showing
restraint, journalists - WILL included - have chosen to spread this
dangerous language virus all over their listening areas.  In doing so they
and you are participating in the current administrations drumbeat for war,
the violation of civil liberties, and the further amassing of power into
the executive branch of government.

Second, the piece drew unfounded connections between the recent arson and
acts committed by the ELF and ALF.  The piece seemed bent on spreading
panic - "Oh no, the domestic terrorists are spreading too!" - rather than
addressing events with the care and skepticism of a reporter.

Third, the piece convicted the nameless offender and the ELF and ALF
without giving any context for the actions.  There wasn't any mention of
position of the ELF or ALF - the reason for these violent acts.  Aren't
journalists morally obligated to show at least two sides of a story?  Once
someone is called a terrorist, does that mean we are no longer obligated
to hear their voice?  Once someone is connected to a violent act, and that
violent act is called terrorist, does that mean they are guilty before a
trial?  Think how much power the designation "terrorist" holds.  Please
please use this term with care.

In summary, the Indiana story you ran this morning was a horrible piece of
biased propaganda that WILL should have never written or passed from the
wire without critical editorial oversight.

I don't mean to sound over-dramatic, but I understand that rigorous
journalistic practices to get at the "best available version of the truth"
are central to building and maintaining democracy.  I fear for our
democracy right now, which is why I take your job very seriously.

Thank you for your time.  I appreciate the work that you do.

sincerely,

Danielle Chynoweth


-- 
| Danielle Chynoweth
|
| Graphic Design Director * OJC Technologies * www.ojctech.com
| Alderperson, Ward 4 * Urbana City Council * www.city.urbana.il.us