"Homicide bombers"

[Daliman]

Is Fox News the only station to use this moronic term? I seem to remember a year or so ago someone mentioning that "suicide bombers" should be called "homocide bombers" because they are killing other people too, but I really thought no one would be stupid enough to actually call them this seriously. ANY bomber is at least ATTEMPTING to be a "homicide bomber", but most do not ACTUALLY KILL THEMSELVES IN THE PROCESS, THUS THEY ARE A "SUICIDE BOMBER"! If a guy threw a bomb into a crowd, and was unharmed himself, he would THEN be a "homicide bomber", but that would be a bit of a redundant redundancy, wouldn't it?

If this IS strictly a Fox News thing, it does nothing for their journalistic credibility, which is low anyways. If other major stations are usuing it, WTF is wrong with them? Only slight reason I can think of for the usage of this term is to further vilify the attacker, and possibly make his act seem as less martyristic(?), but how many muslims are watching Fox News seriously anyways?

Also, does anyone know the specific Genesis of this term?

If any of you replies Peter Gabriel or Phil Collins, may your soul burn in eternal damnation! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF is wrong with them? Only slight reason I can think of for the usage of this term is to further vilify the attacker

[/ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with further villifying the attacker? I have a hard time not further villifying a guy who straps a bomb to himself then blows it up to kill as many people as possible.

However, CNN is still the king of these type of word games. For years, you were not allowed to say the word "foreign" on CNN (strict Ted Turner rule). It can be used now, but it is used rarely. You must say "international" whenever possible, even though that doesn't mean the same thing as foreign.

Also, CNN anchors cannot use the term "abortion clinic." You must say "women's clinic." There are probably a lot of others as well. All news organizations have their own PC standards.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WTF is wrong with them? Only slight reason I can think of for the usage of this term is to further vilify the attacker

[/ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with further villifying the attacker? I have a hard time not further villifying a guy who straps a bomb to himself then blows it up to kill as many people as possible.

However, CNN is still the king of these type of word games. For years, you were not allowed to say the word "foreign" on CNN (strict Ted Turner rule). It can be used now, but it is used rarely. You must say "international" whenever possible, even though that doesn't mean the same thing as foreign.

Also, CNN anchors cannot use the term "abortion clinic." You must say "women's clinic." There are probably a lot of others as well. All news organizations have their own PC standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really have no problem with further vilifying the attacker, it's just moronic is all. It wuld be barely better than calling Dahmer a Deceased dead homicidal murderer. Well, that's stretching it a bit, as the redundancy is less the issue than the inaccuracy, but I digress.

The CNN foreign/international one sound pretty stupid to me too. I guess I can see a slight negative connotation to foreign though, although interneational could easily just be the better term in certain cases. If someone from the USA was reporting in IRaq and was called a foreign correspondant, he could either BE foreign, or be on foreign soil, or both. "international correspondant" tell you he handles international affiars, and leaves little to no connotation about the reporter himself other thn his job.

If a clinic ONLY handles abortions, it chould be called an abortion clinc. If it handles other procedures and checkups also, it is a health clinic. The fact that many have to go to ONLY being abortion clinics because of external pressure and saftey issues is a mitigating factor here though.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
The CNN foreign/international one sound pretty stupid to me too. I guess I can see a slight negative connotation to foreign though, although interneational could easily just be the better term in certain cases. If someone from the USA was reporting in IRaq and was called a foreign correspondant, he could either BE foreign, or be on foreign soil, or both. "international correspondant" tell you he handles international affiars, and leaves little to no connotation about the reporter himself other thn his job.

[/ QUOTE ]

I loved the CNN "foreign" ban during their sports coverage. I remember Nick Charles (former CNN sports anchor) talking about how "4 consecutive international golfers have won the Masters." What exactly is an "international golfer?" Isn't Tiger Woods or Tom Watson an international golfer? If they are not from the US, they should be called a "foreign player."

As far as the ban on "abortion clinic," I have a problem if a CNN journalist is covering a protest about abortion at a "women's clinic." The people are protesting abortion. If you refuse to mention the word abortion, it is not very accurate coverage.

[andyfox]

Homicide bomber, to me, is redundant. The distinction is between a bomber and a suicide bomber.

But each media outlet has its own peculiarities. The NYT style manual still insists all men are called Mr. ________. My favorite is when they refer to Meat Loaf as "Mr. Loaf."

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
ANY bomber is at least ATTEMPTING to be a "homicide bomber", but most do not ACTUALLY KILL THEMSELVES IN THE PROCESS, THUS THEY ARE A "SUICIDE BOMBER"! If a guy threw a bomb into a crowd, and was unharmed himself, he would THEN be a "homicide bomber", but that would be a bit of a redundant redundancy, wouldn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

A. Not necessarily redundant because the modifier "homicide" clearly differentiates between bombers who are trying to kill people, and bombers whose targets are mere inert objects (for instance, a bomber who targets an oil pipeline or other infrastructure).

B. One bomber in the news generally has committed multiple homicides, but only one suicide: so if a bomber kills ten people plus himself, does it not make at least some sense to accentuate the "homicide" part over the "suicide" part
(seeing as the ratio is weighted 10:1 homicide vs. suicide in the example given)?

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ANY bomber is at least ATTEMPTING to be a "homicide bomber", but most do not ACTUALLY KILL THEMSELVES IN THE PROCESS, THUS THEY ARE A "SUICIDE BOMBER"! If a guy threw a bomb into a crowd, and was unharmed himself, he would THEN be a "homicide bomber", but that would be a bit of a redundant redundancy, wouldn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

A. Not necessarily redundant because the modifier "homicide" clearly differentiates between bombers who are trying to kill people, and bombers whose targets are mere inert objects (for instance, a bomber who targets an oil pipeline or other infrastructure).

B. One bomber in the news generally has committed multiple homicides, but only one suicide: so if a bomber kills ten people plus himself, does it not make at least some sense to accentuate the "homicide" part over the "suicide" part
(seeing as the ratio is weighted 10:1 homicide vs. suicide in the example given)?

[/ QUOTE ]

PArt A is true, but then, he's just a bobmer, but the intensifier here is that he kills hinself at the same time. I doubt Fox is using this term strictly to be more factually accurate.

To similar end, I LOVED it when GHWB pronounced his name "Saddem" instead of "Sadham", since "saddem" had some kind of negative meaning in Iraqi(?).

Should have read, Sadd-ahm for proper purposes, BTW, not Sadham.

[MMMMMM]

I agree it is doubtful that the reasons I gave are why Fox uses the term 'homicide bomber', but that term does make more sense in certain ways (though not in all ways).

I seem to recall "SAD-emm" was described as sort of a belittling term for someone who does menial work--perhaps a shoemaker or something like that.

And yeah I thought that was great too.

[elwoodblues]

Conservative Political Correctness at its finest.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
it does nothing for their journalistic credibility,

[/ QUOTE ] That's never really been a concern of theirs.

[ QUOTE ]
Is Fox News the only station to use this moronic term?

[/ QUOTE ] Of course.

I just did a search. First, a general websearch. All the hits appeared to be RW blogs. They all had the exact same article. Every one dutifully reprinting the same column.

Then, I did a search on Yahoo News, which of course searches multiple on line news sources. Every hit with the term was... FOX news.