¿Separatistas o terroristas?

Interesante post de South of Watford (in english): el punto de vista de un inglés que vive en España sobre la forma en que el Times se ha referido a ETA en la polémica entrevista que ha hecho a De Juana Chaos en el hospital.

I think there are very good, legitimate reasons for using the terminology of the Times article. When I first arrived in Spain I was a bit shocked by the way in which journalists in the press or television routinely referred to ETA as the “banda terrorista”. It surprised me, not because I believe that ETA isn’t a terrorist organisation, but just because I was not used to journalists describing them in this way. I don’t remember the television or press back in the UK always describing the IRA in this way as a terrorist group, and it’s not necessarily something I want my sources of information about the world to be doing. I tend to take the position that I am capable of reaching my own conclusions on the issue.

It is of course quite possible for a group like ETA to be separatist and terrorist at the same time, the two things are not incompatible. The former is descriptive of the objectives of the group, and the latter of the methods they use to try and achieve those objectives. Like it or not, “terrorist” is a subjective, judgemental term. It is a cliché to say that one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, but the cliché is to some extent a reflection of reality. The issue is always better illustrated by taking examples from far away, two that spring to mind easily are the FARC in Colombia, and Hamas in Palestine. For some people both of these are terrorist organisations, while others think neither of them are. The question is whether it helps our understanding of the issues for journalists to use it as a description.

The reason why ETA gets referred to as a separatist organisation by foreign journalists is not because those journalists are sympathetic to the organisation; it is simply an attempt to find a more neutral non-judgemental way of describing them. When you are writing about events for the benefit of people who may not be very knowledgeable on the topic, you have to devote more effort to descriptive explanation. This is something that distinguishes a lot of journalism about international affairs from that concerning domestic affairs where readers are more familiar with the subject matter. To me, the job of the journalist is not to impose an acceptable vocabulary or judgemental vision except in cases where it is clear that is a comment piece.