Tuesday, November 01, 2005
THE "TRAGIC EVENTS"
The BBC reports:
I'm not saying Islam was responsible, just that "Islam" and "Muslims" are certainly relevant to the issue of coverage of the remembrance of the attacks. Yet the BBC managed to get through that entire piece without once mentioning "Muslim" or "Islam". (Well, at least they noted by paragraph four that the attackers were "suicide bombers".) And in their take, Reuters managed that feat too -- and also included this nifty descriptive line:
That's right: "Britons".
Neither is surprising, though, really. For in general remembrance, the following -- as in the manner of "the events" of September 11, 2001 -- has become all too common:
And one could go on.
Undoubtedly, it was an "event". According to Dictionary.com "event" simply means, at its root:
Yes, clearly, something happened. But "something" also happens all the time, every day.
So by using the word "event" to describe the attacks of July 7, are we attempting to distance ourselves from it? Compartmentalize it? Even minimize it? After all, a school play is also an "event".
Of more concern is the similar use of the word "tragedy". That is defined by Dictionary.com as meaning (in this case as it would be most closely relevant):
Was what happened back on July 7 outside human control, like the example above? Or was it a deliberate act? It would seem to be the latter. So "tragedy" hardly seems appropriate.
And consider this example of the use of the expression "tragic event". How's it sound?:
Now, here's another way to describe what happened in London, July 7, 2005:
And I suppose neither should it be surprising that while "Islam" and "Muslims" managed to go unmentioned by both the BBC and Reuters, both did manage to tell us how a distraught 11 year old blames both Blair and "the bombers". The Reuters version:
One wonders if they would have been so quick to give such prominence to that poor child's view if his mother had stated how he laid the blame squarely and entirely on Islam?
UPDATE, November 2: Following the "event", the BBC has of course, changed the page. Now, they manage at least to mention the word "Muslim" -- in this context:
Well, I know that certainly better "illuminates" the "tragic events". ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 01, 2005
The BBC reports:
The Queen is due to lead a national memorial service in London dedicated to the victims of the 7 July bombings.
Relatives who lost loved ones, survivors and members of the emergency services will join a 2,300 congregation at St Paul's Cathedral on Tuesday.
Tony Blair and the Archbishop of Canterbury will also be among those gathering at the service where candles will be lit to mark the bomb sites.
The attacks by four suicide bombers killed 52 people and injured hundreds...
Relatives who lost loved ones, survivors and members of the emergency services will join a 2,300 congregation at St Paul's Cathedral on Tuesday.
Tony Blair and the Archbishop of Canterbury will also be among those gathering at the service where candles will be lit to mark the bomb sites.
The attacks by four suicide bombers killed 52 people and injured hundreds...
I'm not saying Islam was responsible, just that "Islam" and "Muslims" are certainly relevant to the issue of coverage of the remembrance of the attacks. Yet the BBC managed to get through that entire piece without once mentioning "Muslim" or "Islam". (Well, at least they noted by paragraph four that the attackers were "suicide bombers".) And in their take, Reuters managed that feat too -- and also included this nifty descriptive line:
Four Britons killed themselves...
That's right: "Britons".
Neither is surprising, though, really. For in general remembrance, the following -- as in the manner of "the events" of September 11, 2001 -- has become all too common:
What the events of 7/7 say about Britain’s capital
Your thoughts on the events of 7 July 2005 in London
...A tragic event which has been widely condemned by members and leaders of all faiths and beliefs...
Painting forsees 7/7 tragedy?
...the terrible events in London last Thursday...
...the tragedy of 7/7 in London...
And one could go on.
Undoubtedly, it was an "event". According to Dictionary.com "event" simply means, at its root:
Something that takes place; an occurrence.
Yes, clearly, something happened. But "something" also happens all the time, every day.
So by using the word "event" to describe the attacks of July 7, are we attempting to distance ourselves from it? Compartmentalize it? Even minimize it? After all, a school play is also an "event".
Of more concern is the similar use of the word "tragedy". That is defined by Dictionary.com as meaning (in this case as it would be most closely relevant):
3. A disastrous event, especially one involving distressing loss or injury to life: an expedition that ended in tragedy, with all hands lost at sea.
Was what happened back on July 7 outside human control, like the example above? Or was it a deliberate act? It would seem to be the latter. So "tragedy" hardly seems appropriate.
And consider this example of the use of the expression "tragic event". How's it sound?:
It just doesn't quite nail it. Does it?"Did you hear about the woman who lived down the street and was killed the other day? She was shot 10 times while on her way to work by an attacker who then committed suicide. He was apparently ever-increasingly aggrieved and disenchanted over her not wanting to go out with him. What a tragic event."
Now, here's another way to describe what happened in London, July 7, 2005:
Because that's what happened that day. It wasn't just a ho-hum "event", or a "tragedy". It was a coldly calculated attack, devised by human beings who, for reasons of their own (rooted in what they considered their religious faith), were determined to wreak maximum havoc and death on other human beings.On the morning of 7 July 2005, 52 people were killed on London tube trains and on a bus, by four Muslim suicide bombers who believed that in blowing themselves up they were doing so in the name of their faith.
_____________________________
And I suppose neither should it be surprising that while "Islam" and "Muslims" managed to go unmentioned by both the BBC and Reuters, both did manage to tell us how a distraught 11 year old blames both Blair and "the bombers". The Reuters version:
...The queen will be met at the cathedral by victims' families and will receive a posy of flowers from 7-year-old Ruby Grey, whose father Richard was killed in one of the blasts.
However, her 11-year-old brother, Adam, has boycotted the ceremony, because he holds Blair responsible for the attacks.
"He is very angry with the bombers but he also blames the (Iraq) war and he blames the government," his mother Louise told the London Evening Standard newspaper. "He doesn't want to be part of anything that has Tony Blair there."...
However, her 11-year-old brother, Adam, has boycotted the ceremony, because he holds Blair responsible for the attacks.
"He is very angry with the bombers but he also blames the (Iraq) war and he blames the government," his mother Louise told the London Evening Standard newspaper. "He doesn't want to be part of anything that has Tony Blair there."...
One wonders if they would have been so quick to give such prominence to that poor child's view if his mother had stated how he laid the blame squarely and entirely on Islam?
_____________________________
UPDATE, November 2: Following the "event", the BBC has of course, changed the page. Now, they manage at least to mention the word "Muslim" -- in this context:
...A "candle of hope" was also lit by a 15-year-old Sikh, an 11-year-old Buddhist, a 15-year-old Jew, a 12-year-old Hindu, a 14-year-old Muslim and an 18-year-old Christian...
Well, I know that certainly better "illuminates" the "tragic events". ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 01, 2005
