Words Matter

"Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you" seems to be a popular adage when trying to comfort little kids who get picked on during recess - as if the proper response is to tell the child to brush it off, rather than address the bully who persistently teases their classmates. We all know it's not true, though. Words matter. Words hurt.

Not unusually, at one point this morning I opened up three English language local news sources to check out today's headlines. The first news source, Ha'aretz, is an Israeli newspaper that often features left-leaning opinion articles and journalists that cover the occupation. The second, Ma'an, is a Palestinian news source that covers a wide range of Palestinian political, social and economic stories. The third, The Jerusalem Post, is also an Israeli newspaper that publishes English stories and is known for generally being more conservative than Ha'aretz.

Also not unusually, all three sites featured the same story as their top headline at the time. The same story, but not the same headline. Not even close.

 Compare these local headlines:

Ha'aretz: "IDF soldier, Palestinian militant killed in exchange of fire on Gaza border"

Ma'an: "Army: Israeli soldier, Palestinian killed in south Gaza"

Jerusalem Post: "IDF soldier, terrorist killed in exchange of fire near Gaza"

Same story. Different message. Words matter.

The choice of "Palestinian" (human) versus "Palestinian militant" (bad human) versus "terrorist" (inhuman) is not inconsequential. It is an intentional choice by the journalist/editor and it has an impact on the reader's immediate comprehension of the story. What is a "militant", anyway? How precisely does it differ from a "soldier" in the context of a people living under occupation without a military of their own? The circumstances of the story are unclear, but the mainstream media does not open the door to further exploration. It so often slams the door shut on any questions with one word: terrorist. Security. Threat. Danger.

After opening up the local news sources, my curiosity got the better of me. What terminology were international news sources using? I was quickly able to find the story on the BBC, New York Times, and Washington Post...

Compare these international headlines:

 

BBC: "Israeli and Palestinian killed in Gaza border"

The New York Times: "Palestinian, Israeli Killed in Shootout Near Gaza"

The Washington Post: "Shootout near Gaza border kills Palestinian militant, Israeli soldier"

Thankfully, none of these sources use "terrorist". However, while both the Washington Post and NYT are quick to identify the Palestinian as a "militant", the BBC article includes the sentence: "It is not known if the Palestinian was a member of a militant group." It is not known. 

It is not known, says the BBC, and yet almost every other source felt comfortable labeling the Palestinian as a "militant" or even a "terrorist". The point of this blog is not to debate whether the Palestinian man who was killed was indeed a militant, a terrorist, a psychologically wounded individual, a member of Hamas, or any other potential label we could apply to a person in order to write off their personhood. The point is that words matter. The point is that we could learn more from one another and from our news if we hesitated just a little longer before labeling and categorizing. The point is that if you are going to keep up with the news from Palestine and Israel, you'd do best to open multiple windows on your computer and to read between the lines and beyond the name-calling, remembering that the most basic headline in this case could simply be: "Two people died in south Gaza today."