When a victim is a murderer.

[Art]

In what way was the bomber Muslim? Not all Palestinian terrorists are Muslims. Many are Christian. Many are secular. They conduct their acts of terror for an earthly cause, not a religious one. In order to verify the meaning of the word victim is being used so, you'd have to verify that the author of the article proved the terrorist was a Muslim. That the Muslim in question believed that killing Jews was a call from Allah.

You'd have to preclude any earthly consideration, by definition. You'd have to preculde any anger or causation from Israel existing in the disputed territories. Further, you'd have to ignore how the word victim has been used in the past by this paper and this writer to describe the plight of Palestinian life under Israeli occupation. That is a victim as circumstance. They could have meant that, or a victim of the war, or whatever.

It is impossible to have concluded the word meaning you have from the contextual usage of the word in this article. Everyone knows what victim means. Even in England. Everyone knows how it's used. Everyone knows it was used here improperly. But, if you guys want to dance around finding ways to defend the improper use, that's fine. I've admitted, if used in a singular fashion, the word could apply to the terrorist. But, the same word can not apply to both the terrorist and the victims of the terrorist if it is inclusive of all parties. That's where you have a word used far more pointedly than you guys care to let on.

[Art]

Originally posted by Burgold

When I first read the line my action was very similar to Art's. It hasn't shifted too much, but there is a division between the bomber and the victims. It doesn't unify them really. On the other hand, it's a strange sentence in that it really doesn't need to be included. If she's a homocide bomber than of course her remains will be mixed with those she victimized. I guess it's useful information that she died also, but when you name them suicide (I prefer homocide) bombers then that information is already understood. The question in my mind is... is this a case of bias or a case of poor English. I think it hedges towards a bit of both, but I am not sure if it's simply not a case of the writer felt they had to describe who the bomber was and then simply added a bit then intentional bias.

It's a good point here Burgold. A chief error journalists are schooled to avoid is redundancy. A murder victim of a gunshot wound is not shot to death. He's simply shot. Death is already established. And, you can read the sentence to mean the bomber's dead body was among, meaning mixed in, with the victims. I just don't think that was the direction the author was heading .

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Burgold

ASF,

How can you say in no way do you condone and then precede to defend it? If you can defend it aren't you condoning it?

Burgold, we must be talking about different things. I was not condoning the actual bombings, but I was defending the BBC's use of the term "victim" on the somewhat narrow grounds that it's actually true to the original definition of the word.

[Art]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

Burgold, we must be talking about different things. I was not condoning the actual bombings, but I was defending the BBC's use of the term "victim" on the somewhat narrow grounds that it's actually true to the original definition of the word.

Except it's only even partially true to the original definition if you add information not present to from the author or available at all within the time frame of the publication of the article after the killings. So, on the narrow grounds that you were defending the use of the word because it fit the original definition of the word you have yet to demonstrate that such is the case, though, I agree with you that you were defending the usage by the paper and not the actions of the terrorists.

[Yomar]

Blade,

I read the study by Asserson. I don't really know how to feel about it. The primary problem is that I didn't watch the shows or read the articles he singled out, or if I did I don't remember them, so I don't really have a good frame of reference. The most damning part in my opinion was the use of images he illustrated, and there is enough there that I will certainly try to be more conscious of BBC bias. But also I don't know who these people from BBC Watch are. I feel safe in assuming they are people who probably have strong views and emotional ties to the conflict and so I think they may not be the best assessors of the BBC's objectivity on the topic. I do believe that the BBC does a good job of minimizing bias and trying to show all sides of the story and that belief is based on my experience reading BBC. I suspect that a case such as the one made by BBC Watch could probably be made by any group, I would be interested to see what a group sympathetic to the Palestinians could put together to show BBC bias. But that does not marginalize the claims and complaints made by Asserson & Co., I'll certainly try to read the BBC with a little more of a critical eye, but while it would be wrong of me to say they are infallible in their objectivity, I do believe they make an honest effort.

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by Art

In language, when defining word use, you simply scroll down the list of what a word means until the first definition applies adequately to the usage.

Oh, twaddle. Piffle. And bosh. You do not. That would mean interperatations of masterworks like Shakespeare would be at the mercy of the current Webster's.

Not to mention, you scrolled down to a definition that didn't fit, and then complained that it didn't fit.

[Art]

Why would you use the current Webster's to define Romeo and Juliet? Why would you use the biblical definition of a word to define the modern usage of a word? It's really not hard, Jimbo, no matter how complex you need to make it. A word means what it means. The definition of "victim" that accounts for the people the terrorist killed is different than the definition of "victim" that accounts for the terrorist herself.

And you can't apply two definitions to the same word under the same usage unless you're an idiot. You're not, right? Then stop trying.

[codeorama]

The columbine shootings had the same usage of the word "victims". I saw several reports that listed the 2 shooters among the victims and there were protests about it.

I would agree that using the word "victim" in those ways is inappropriate, but here are 2 cases of it being used in that way...

However, I agree with Jimbo's sentiment.

[Art]

Code,

I don't recall seeing that specifically in the Columbine coverage, but it would certainly go to figure, given the general media position against guns, the children who killed the other children were victims of the guns. I would be guessing to say that the phrasing of the word was in the context of gun crimes, etc., thereby placing the context differently.

However, as Jimbo's position is the same word can have two different definitions applied in the same usage in the same sentence, are you SURE you want to take that position and agree with it? Each word in each sentence means one thing. You can't get to one word and figure that it has two meanings because you want desperately to avoid the real issue of clear one-sided usage of the language in a story.

Once you get your mind wrapped around the truth of the matter that every single utterance in every single sentence has a single meaning per use, though that meaning can change each different use, you'll be in a happy place .

[codeorama]

Art, I don't disagree with the fact that it was the wrong word to use.

And yes, during the Columbine "thing", there was a big uproar because there was some type of "memorial" that listed the victims and the shooters were included. I agree with what you said, it seemed to be that they were viewed as victims of the guns... which is crap, the guns were only their tools.

I agree with Jimbo's sentiment in that in my opinion, the media often uses words like "victim" and they may not have the intention that you insist they do.

You yourself just proved that, the word "victim" is thrown in for the columbine killers, that probably means that they were victims of the guns, well, how do we know that the terrorists were not victims of their religion or victims of the explosives or what ever... I don't agree with that, in my opinion, they were not victims, but for you to say what the writer's intentions were and be 100% positive in you assertion is a little arrogant in my opinon. The word victim can have the same inappropriate meaning in both cases, but I don't think the masses are going to change their personal beliefs because of the way the word was used.

[Art]

Code,

No one's saying the media doesn't use this word inappropriately and as in this case incorrectly all the time. It's a wonderful example of bias, which is what the thread was about. Electing to use the word in this case, as in the case of the Columbine killings, is bias because the meaning of the word is clear. Now, it CAN be correct as in the case of the Columbine killings example you've pointed out since they contextualized, you agreed, what they were victims of.

But, since you missed it, here, again, is the context victim was applied to here:

A suicide blast has killed at least three people in a shopping mall in the northern Israeli town of Afula.

At least 48 people were wounded in the blast - the second suicide attack against Israelis on Monday and the fifth in three days.

The bomber - a 19-year-old female student from the West Bank - was among the victims.

We know precisely what the author was saying. It's not arrogant to read the words and contextualize the usage. The author says a suicide blast has killed three people. Some 48 people were wounded. The bomber was among the victims. Victims of what? They established the context in the first sentence. A suicide blast.

Absent another qualifier, the only context victim was used in here was that the victims were of a suicide blast. Since the author used the plural form of the word, she is lumping in the people killed with the perpetrator of the act. That means a single definition must fit all of the people described. No single definition of victim fits that. Distinctly different definitions do.

Now, if you read the sentence such that "among" means the bomber's body was among that of the victims, you can excuse the phrasing, though it would be a horribly crafted and callous sentence. If the author had made singular the use of victim, such as, "The bomber was also a victim," the author could have legitimately altered the meaning to apply only to a defined usage that fits that single person, and, though, again, distasteful, it would have been correct.

Here, the author calls the killer and the killed victims of the same action without further explanation. And since you can't apply a single the same definition to all of the people in this context, the usage was incorrect. But, again, that on the face of it, as obvious as it is, is not essential to why this thread exists. This thread exists to display the bias in the media and the use of this word furthers a known Palestinian bias in the BBC by giving equal standing to the terrorist and the victims of the terrorist.

[Burgold]

However, as Jimbo's position is the same word can have two different definitions applied in the same usage in the same sentence, are you SURE you want to take that position and agree with it? Each word in each sentence means one thing. You can't get to one word and figure that it has two meanings because you want desperately to avoid the real issue of clear one-sided usage of the language in a story.

You're very wrong about this, Art. Some of the greatest arguments have come over how a word is interpreted and how it is heard. English is a clumsy language. In this case, you choose to ignore the hyphenated seperation between the victims of the explosion and the description of the murderer. That seperation, grammatically, could be very important. As for the words itself, the shading we impart to a word is crucial to how individuals interpret events. I've written some plays that have been produced here and there. You would be amazed how certain sentences are read, what the audience picks up, and how it deviates from what was intended. The simplest way to explain this is by talking about subtext. Take the old actor's exercise. How many different ways can you say good morning and generate a different meaning. Good morning can mean "hello" it can mean "Good bye" it can mean, "Wow" it can mean "go to heck" etc. Yet on the page even if you think it is clear in context which it should be, different readers will choose a different definition and be certain that they are correct.

[codeorama]

Art, there is no difference between this article and the Columbine killings. The killers in both took their own lives. The media reports that they are "victims". I disagree, they are Killers, I would have wrote... "the Killer(s) were among the dead"... I'm just pointing out that the usage is the same in both cases, obviously there is a "trend" to use the word in this way, I'm sure if someone looked, there would be other cases. I think it's more of a feeling of compassion or tragedy towards the killers by the media rather than a conspiracy to implicate that they are not responsible.

I think that by the media saying that they (in both cases) were victims, it is saying that they were victims of the "blast" itself or the "shooting". I don't agree with it but when I read it, that's what comes to mind.

[Art]

Burgold,

You haven't actually spoken to anything I said. What I said was, each word in each sentence has a specific meaning based upon the context of its use. Nothing you addressed actually did anything at all to compliment or destruct anything I said.

Again, each word within a sentence has a meaning. Almost every word, depending on context, can have multiple meanings. Multiple shades. And within the structure of a sentence, the meaning of each word is the same, meaning one word can't mean two different things when applied the same way. One person can hear one thing. One person can hear another. Intrepretation can play a part. But, the meaning is still singular.

If a word has five specific defined usages, it can't, in the same sentence, mean more than one of them at a time. Each time it is used it can mean something new. But even if there is static as to how the receiver intreprets meaning, the receiver isn't applying different meanings to the same word within the same context. He may be personalizing the words. This happened with Santorum and with Lott who combined didn't say anything at all offensive, but the receivers decided to add their own perceptions and alter the communication. That is a description you are capturing that is wholly different than what I'm referring to.

If you need further clarification, feel free to ask.

[Burgold]

We could go back to my "Good Morning" example. If you read a statement or a quote where one person says good morning. You could easily apply multiple definitions to the word "good" or to the entire phrase.

How about,

You are looking fit today?

You could take the word "fit" and using constant definitions for each and every other word come up with twelve or so different meanings. You could even come up with two different simultaneous meanings.

[smsmith40]

Citing BBCwatch as an objective analysis of BBC is a joke. They are an organisation specifically set up to look for BBC bias against Israel. Its not particularily surprising that it manages to justify its own existance.

Perhap if people looked outside of their entenched positions and tried to find some solution to the problems we could look forward to the endless cycle of violence this conflict has become

[Art]

Smith,

Have you shown us an example here of looking beyond your entrenched position and tried to come up with some solution to the problems, or, have you arbitrarily and without attribution dismissed BBC Watch's findings with the childish and intellectually foolish statement that they are looking for bias and it's not surprising they find it.

In fact, that's the point. It is surprising they find it because the BBC is not supposed to express bias. It is by law supposed to be impartial and straight in reporting. It has a legal obligation to tell both stories. Nothing in the BBC Watch reports seems to be dismissed by your belief, though unfounded in terms of attribution, that the BBC Watch is pro-Israel. It may be so, but they could be Zionists living in Israel and STILL have been powerful in proving the bias of the BBC with the examples they used.

But, let me ask you about moving beyond an entrenched position to look for a solution. When Israel agreed to pull back to 1967 borders in return for peace, and Arafat and his people rejected that on the grounds that Israel has no right to exist at all, which side in the Camp David accords sought to find a way out of the cycle of violence and which didn't? Do you know?

Burgold,

Varying meanings only apply where contextually they fit. If different definitions fit, then you are really talking about synonymous meanings. Essentially the same translation. Good, however, can not mean, in the same sentence, both being positive in nature AND being full -- a good mile -- at the same time, in the same sentence. Good is either an adjective or a noun or even an adverb. It can't be all of that in the same sentence at the same time.

I'm not really sure why that's a debate to a few of you.

[smsmith40]

Art

The point I was trying to make was it is illogical to use a self-confessedly biased organisatio to look for bias in another. If I set up an oragnisation to search for pro-Israel bias in BBCwatch's content would that make me an objective source ?

On the Camp David debacle, I think you have me confused with an Arafat supporter ? Those talks were just another example of people not being able see beyond their own prejudices, the guilty party on that occasion were the Palestinians.

Barak was clearly attempting to do exactly the kind of thing I would hope for from both sides, (although the deal was not quite as black and white or as simple as you suggest), unfortunately he could not carry the majority of his people with him and lost the election.

Sharon would cut his hand off before he offered that deal to the Palestinians, Arafat would bite it off if he was offered it again.

My point is very simple, until both sides stop using violence against the other and learn to see each others point of view then no progress will be made and inncoent people will continue to die.

[Burgold]

Art,

Your argument was that a word can not have two different definitions in the same sentence. You have added that given the context of the surrounding words no single word can have multiple definitions (my inference is no word within a sentence can have multiple meanings to the listenter/reader). This statement overlooks the fact that the same word can have coloquial meanings, classic definitions, cultural meanings etc. all of which could create confusion. I am minimizing the usage part, because that his use of the word "victim" wasn't a matter of converting the form of the word, utilizing one of several proper definitions for the noun. Certainly, we both could imagine a sentence where we could debate in our own minds "did the writer mean a or b" even when using all the context clues in the surrounding sentence. If you want a minor consession, I'll give you that a word is unlikely to change form in the reader's mind (verb-noun) in a reader's mind, although that level of confusion is possible too.

[Art]

Smith,

Where does BBC Watch admit to being pro-Israel? Where is the self-confession of bias? BBC Watch asserts, ""The objective of BBC Watch is to monitor BBC coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to analyse this coverage in light of the BBC's obligation to report accurately and impartially in accordance with the terms of its Charter."

Where does it say, "We're an organization that favors Israel"?

But, as I wrote, even if this was an organization that clearly did admit to such bias, if there were examples of this bias within what the BBC produces, it wouldn't lessen the impact of the findings. The findings would still be true even if sought by a group looking for such slant. That's the whole point. If you can find it, no matter your motives, it's there. Are you saying it doesn't exist because you perceive -- perhaps rightly -- that the people at BBC Watch are openly in favor of Israel?

You can't be saying that. Because no matter what they believe personally, each of the examples they pointed to do exist and do portray a bias. That's the issue. Surely you see that.

[Art]

Burgold,

I haven't added context. I've been speaking of context from the beginning. A word, standing alone, can have any number of meanings. A word in a sentence is contained in a context. By being part of the sentence structure meaning is defined and context exists. It's not new. It is what it is. A word can not have different meanings within the same sentence -- which does mean within the context of the words that surround it because a sentence has words that surround and influence the other words.

There is no known meaning of "victims" that would be inclusive of both the people the bomber killed and the bomber herself and the writer used "victims" to lump both groups into the same meaning. There are different meanings of the word that do capture both sets of people, but, that's where you get into a usage issue. The same word can't mean both a and b within the same sentence/context/usage unless a and b are synonyms.

If, however, the author had laid out the religious aspects of the action, it is possible the original definition of a sacrifice to a god could have fit. But, since that wasn't laid out for us, the word had to have meant another thing and it couldn't have meant two other things in the same sentence to describe two distinctly different groups of people.

[Burgold]

Mostly arguing for the sake of arguing, but what the hey... try these sentences out for size and tell me what I am meaning and that there could not be a second reasonable interpretation based on a reasonable definition change of a single word.

1. That is one cool dude.

2. He is one bad man.

3. The man was stoned.

4. The clerk sought help.

[JimboDaMan]

This argument has long out grown its usefulness, yet here I am like an idiot.:doh:

My Webster's, definition 2a, states "one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions".

The condition is that the bomb exploded. Several people were destroyed. They were victims of the bomb (or more precisely, of the explosion). One of them was the detonator, carrier, planter, or whatever, of the bomb. I don't see that distinction as relevant to the definition I quoted above. The word is not only correctly used but I suspect deliberately chosen because it draws no distinction. In fact, that is why I find the wording offensive.

[Art]

Burgold,

I have no idea. However, do you deny that you wrote each sentence with a meaning in mind? No matter which of those meanings I pick, whether they match what you wrote or not, the fact is, each word in each sentence has but one meaning.

In any case, you do agree, using the first sentence as the example, that cool can't mean BOTH moderately cold, lacking in warmth AND steady dispassionate calmness. It means one, or the other, or one of the others. Used a different way, it can mean one, the other, or one of the others too. But, in each use, it only means ONE of the definitions at a time.

And I can't believe you don't get it.

[The Evil Genius]

So now has the story changed? When I wanted to read the full story of Art's original link -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3040827.stm

it says...

At least 48 people were wounded in the blast - the second suicide attack against Israelis on Monday and the fifth in three days.

The bomber - a 19-year-old female student from the West Bank - was among the dead.

Very Very Curious.