rsl12

Why do people choose to use one word over another? Sometimes, the decision may simply be a matter of shading (e.g., 'house' or 'home'?). But often, the clearer, more economical term is preferred. This is particularly true for journalists, where clarity, accuarcy, and conciseness are paramount. As the decision to use the term 'homocide bomber' over 'suicide bomber' is a decision that weighs more heavily on journalists than on others, I think these are the key considerations. (I will admit, however, that the decision of word choice also weighs heavily on politicians. For politicians, the favored method of communication is neither clear nor accurate, though it is often concise. I will ignore politicians for now.)

I would argue that, though the terms 'homocide bomber' and 'suicide bomber' are both equally economical, 'suicide bomber' is clearer and more accurate. Don't agree? Try this thought experiment: what's the first thing you think of when you hear the term 'suicide pilot'?




*ding* time's up. I suspect that the image in your mind is that of a kamakaze pilot--someone who purposely drives a plane into a target in the hopes of causing destruction. Okay, now what's the image that comes to mind when you hear the term 'homocide pilot'?




*ding* For me, I get some maniac in plane gunning down people. It's not at all the image of a kamakaze pilot. I have a similar reaction when I hear the term 'homocide bomber'--someone who secretly plants a bomb under a building or crowded area, and then leaves. The term does not paint a gut-level picture of what it's supposed to define.

Now technically, one can argue that both terms are incomplete: 'suicide bomber' does not include the notion that others are killed in the process, while 'homocide bomber' does not include the notion that the bomber was also killed in the process. However, from a practical point of view, 'suicide bomber' does very much imply an attempt to cause destruction beyond the bomber's own body. Have you ever in your life heard of anyone purposely blowing themselves up in an open, empty field? If someone wants to commit suicide solely for the purposes of ending their own life, they may do so privately in their houses, or dramatically off a bridge, but I have yet to hear of someone going through the trouble of rigging a bomb together just to kill themselves! The term 'suicide bomber' strongly implies intended harm to others, because all suicide bombers we know about seem to have this intention. In contrast, the term 'homocide bomber' does *not* imply intended harm to the bomber, as there are plenty of cases of bombers being quite far away from their bombs when they explode.

DKSuddeth noted that the bomber who kills himself is just as despicable as the bomber who avoids killing himself. Certainly he is entitled to his opinion. However, the journalists on the job are not so entitled--they have a professional obligation to report the facts as accurately, as concisely, and as unbiased as possible. Use of the term 'suicide bomber' allows them to do so--use of the term 'homocide bomber' does not.

Finally, let's consider the term 'terrorist'. The term 'terrorist' is so vague in the context of a suicide bomber as to be useless. Yes, it could be used--you could say 'the terrorist blew himself up at 5th and main and killed 5 others", but it is more economical to just say 'the suicide bomber killed 5 others at 5th and main." Why say 'the man who made a living putting up houses bought nails' when you could say 'the carpenter bought nails'?

Also, labeling someone as a 'terrorist' implies something about the person's motives, and if we're talking about journalism, it colors the story. It's hard for a journalist to plumb the depth of a person's motive if their brain is scattered across the pavement, and they have no business trying to guess at motives without information backing up their guess. The term 'suicide bomber', in contrast, implies more objective facts.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.