The Rhetorica Network offers analysis and commentary about media ethics and the rhetoric, propaganda, biases, and spin of journalism. This site features the Media Ethics and Rhetoric Journal web log, comprehensive news media links, a rhetoric textbook, a primer of critical techniques, and information for citizens. The character of Rhetorica represents the purposes and canons of classical rhetoric. --Andrew R. Cline, Ph.D.
Tapped takes a look at the definitions of “genocide” and “terrorist.” Politics is a battle over the definitions of words. Just as one can lose a battle of arms by diluting one’s strength, definitions lose political effectiveness when too broadly applied. Is the dogmatic right diluting “terrorist” the way the dogmatic left diluted “genocide”?
Posting Schedule:
Winter 2009
M-F: After 1:00 p.m.
SS: When the mood strikes.
Send e-mail to:
dr.cline # rhetorica # net
Follow on Twitter: arcline
If you would like to use this button to link to The Rhetorica Network, please feel free to copy it or hotlink to it.
Dr. Andrew R. Cline
Assistant Professor of Journalism
Missouri State University
Spring 2010 Schedule
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License
Tapped is knocking down a straw man. Terrorism requires motive as well as action. There must be an intent to coerce. While there was speculation that the “snipers” may have been terrorists, I don’t think that the right, in general, regarded him as such merely based on his actions alone.
Although, if they was in fact seeking money, then they would seem to fit the definition. Torrorism does not necessarily require a political goal.
Contrast that with the unwillingness of the left to “label” as terrorists people who use bombs to kill scores of innocent civilians in pizzerias and public busses with the intent to coerce Israel into making political concessions. Using the word terrorist as a “label” to be applied only to those with whom you are not sympathetic also cheapens the word.
Truth is not determined by majority vote