...to be angry with the BBC Africa Desk?

[SilverDragonfly1]

First iabu but please, don't be gentle. If I'm being a woolly do-gooder I need to know. I genuinely am unsure, so thought I would ask the scariest people I know to be the judge.

In January there was a story on the BBC website about a 10 year old girl who had been rigged with explosives and used to kill 19 people as well as herself. The report referred to the 'girl bomber' and 'suicide bomber' in specific and general terms about women and children. I felt that was an inappropriate phrase to use as it strongly implies that this child and others can make the choice to commit suicide and murder of their own free will due to religious belief. In my eyes, this child was a murder victim as are any other children and many women used in this way.

I made a complaint to the BBC and received the response from the Africa Desk stating "It is impossible to know the precise circumstances of any of these people – and whether they volunteered to kill themselves or were forced to do so.
In these circumstances, while we accept the points you have made, we think it is best to use the phrase suicide bomber as that is a term our audiences are used to and so will quickly convey what has happened."

I replied to point out that a child cannot make an informed choice to volunteer to do this and that if audiences are 'used to' the phrase the BBC must take much of the responsibility for that. I also said that I felt audiences were intelligent enough to understand the difference between suicide and murder.

The BBC have replied to state they have nothing else to add (" We do not believe your complaint has raised a significant issue of general importance that might justify further investigation.") and will not be replying to any further discussions on the subject. In fact, they spent 3 paragraphs telling me that they aren't talking to me any more.

My question is, am I being unreasonable to think this is a genuine issue that deserves to be addressed? I think that portraying a little girl as a murderer is very wrong and that it contributes to the 'othering' of Muslims by suggesting that even their children are irredeemably wicked before they reach secondary age. But I'm a white, fairly privileged woman who undoubtedly has too much time on her hands. So perhaps I am getting angry about something that is okay and that doesn't really matter.

Sorry for the length, I can't see anything to cut without losing relevant details!

I say funnily because it shows that there really are people out there who have been brainwashed into thinking that way. Sure, much of it will come from upbringing, family and peers, but the media has its share of the blame.

I agree actually and thought about complaining myself as I thought it was dubious to suggest adult intention in this case. I can see how suggesting coercion could be seen as feeding an ' inhuman muslims force child' spin without proof amd also how do you deal with child soldiers who sound committed. But I still felt 'a ten year old strapped with explosives' would have been more appropriate than a ten year old suicide bomber. It does feel wrong

Who broadcast it? TV, online, radio (all three)? Are you in the UK?

Who has answered the complaint?

There is no 'Africa desk' as far as I know. There is an Africa Service - but that's part of the World Service - was it on world service radio you heard the piece?

Was there a reporter? IE 'such and such reports' - if so, who? (If you can recall!). Or was it the newsreader only (copy)?

I know from their first response that I wasn't the only one to complain.

Child soldiers do sound committed, because they've been abused and forced to watch and commit atrocities until the only way to cope is to convince themselves it's okay. So it's a very similar situation imo. Child soldiers are undoubtedly not making any sort of rational or informed decision to live in that way.

forced suicide? Isn't that murder?

Agree with you OP. Suicide is a choice. This is child abuse of the highest order

Yes, UK. It was on the BBC website that I saw it. The first reply comes from Sean Lonergan and the second just says BBC Complaints. The Africa Desk is what was referred to in their initial reply- they said
"With regard to your complaint, we have raised a number of complaints on this issue with our Africa desk and they have written in response:
"It is impossible to know the precise circumstances of any of these people – and whether they volunteered to kill themselves or were forced to do so..." etc

This is the link www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30761963 No one is credited with the report that I can see.

I just found this, which appears to be written more sensitively and quotes a correspondent/reporter who I assume (I don't know) is from the World Service.

[[http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30761963]]

I wonder - suspect - the BBC agrees with you but is reluctant to admit a lapse?

I remember the story, and remember thinking the exact same thing. YADNBU.

Try telling the mother of Jamie Bulger that 10 is too young for criminal culpability

I didn't see the term 'suicide bomber' in that piece - just 'girl bomber'. I agree 'suicide bomber' is inappropriate.

Not sure about 'girl bomber' - I think you raise a really interesting point.

You think she should not be referred to as a 'bomber' at all? I see your point. It does make her the active agent but implies less about her (assumed) motives than 'suicide bomber'.

Of course you are right that no ten year old can make an informed choice and I completely agree that the unfortunate child was manipulated and of course it's utterly wrong and abusive but do we know if she detonated or if it was done remotely. I think this is genuinely difficult for the bbc. It must be impartial and report the facts - and the facts are horrific and speak of a group of people so ruthless they'll use a child to kill and be killed.
It's pretty stark.

But I also agree the words matter.

Here's another report about a child who couldn't do as she'd been instructed (by her parents).

m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30601639

I prefer Suicide Bomber. Lots of them have been coerced in some way. It's not unusual.

This was clearly a 'pre-teen quasi autonomous self detonation of unclear motivational certitude carried out by a person of unspecified gender (in order not to offend any gender related sensitivities)'

ISIS are with you OP. They have just been on the phone, and your point on the wording is so spot on, they have agreed never to use kids as bomb delivery systems ever again. words do matter

There are more important things about that story than fussing about the etiquette of how they refer to a suicide bomber .

YANBU
A child "suicide bomber" is an abused child. The BBC's response is disappointing.

Agree totally OP, YADNBU and good for you for pursuing the complaint. The BBC's coverage of radical Islamic activity - in fact, geopolitics generally - is so uncritical and unquestioning it makes me weep. I don't know how the people who work the news desk stand it.

YANBU

No one has suggested that using different words would result in world peace, as I said up-thread. There are a lot of things to get upset about in that article, but I'm only one very ordinary person. I can't change the political or religious views of a fundamentalist, but I can stand up for an innocent child's right not be be branded a murderer in death.

Mummy it does look as though the article has been slightly altered, which is something. 'Girl bomber' is still not great, it continues to suggest an autonomy that simply isn't there.

Honestly, I do understand that some people will think this is a ridiculous niggle about semantics and I'm not suggesting we all band together to decry the term and then sit back happily, our work done. But I also think the overtones are more important than they seem- the subtext is very racist and othering. If you doubt that, imagine how the same story would have been reported if it had been a white British child, being used to bomb a shopping centre in Tunbridge Wells. Would there be even the faintest insinuation that the child was complicit or at fault?

In addition, the BBC's very curt and dismissive response and outright refusal to engage in adult discussion is rather disturbing.

Agree with what seems to be general consensus that the term "suicide bomber" is very inappropriate to apply to a 10yo child.

If they've changed it, that suggests to me that they did reflect and agreed with you, at least partly.

In this country ten years old is the age of criminal responsibility - maybe that's the line they've drawn, otherwise when is it deemed a child is responsible, 11, 12, 13 - if the BBC shuns the only legal measure available then it's the BBC deciding, in effect, when children become criminally liable and that isn't acceptable either.

I'm thinking aloud here. As I've said, I think you raise good and important points. I'm not dismissing your concerns at all. Language matters enormously imo.

YADNBU,, and your thought experiment re Tunbridge Wells demonstrates that amply. BBC response is poor, and I think it is worth complaining about- I'm a committed BBC consumer (and licence payer of course) and I expect better. Send them a link to this thread.

Yes, I think living bomb is a fairer descriptive term.

But I don't agree that the terminology suicide bomber implies criminal intention, or that it is as twisted as 'child porn'.

Thank you OP for posting, it is an interesting debate and I also agree words are powerful and it is important to get them right