Which verb correctly describes the act of killing an unarmed civilian who has been abducted at gunpoint after arriving for peaceful purposes in a country that his own is not at war with? Before I answer my own question, let me suggest a word that is emphatically incorrect. It is the one Hervé Gourdel’s kidnappers may have been delighted to see used, and used repeatedly: execute.
Gourdel, a French mountain guide decapitated by the self-styled Soldiers of the Caliphate in Algeria last month, was not sentenced to die for anything he had done. Nothing resembling due process took place before his captors put him to death. There was no trial, no considered legal argument, no appeal. Yet far too many television, radio and newspaper reporters have insisted on stating he was executed. He was not. He was murdered, and it is surely no part of the media's function to adopt terminology that lends authority to the actions of ruthless militant groups.
It is not a political stance to regard as offensive the treatment of innocent victims, however unintentional, as if they have committed some crime and been properly judged, a sequence implied by the use of “execute” and its derivatives.
Gourdel was murdered because he was a French citizen in the wrong place at the wrong time. ISIL, to which the Soldiers of the Caliphate profess allegiance, had earlier declared that the "dirty French" should be killed anywhere in the world, and by whatever means, because France had embarked on air strikes in response to the group's seizure of large areas of Syria and northern Iraq. French television was guilty of the same lapse yesterday. France 2 described the odious murder of the British aid volunteer Alan Henning as a "new execution".
Every French reporter knows the words that ought to be used for these deaths. Meurtre, for murder, sounds right to English-speaking ears but can refer to a killing with extenuating circumstances, such as self-defence. When someone takes another life voluntarily and with premeditation, the French verb is assassiner, the act itself an assassinat.
Those perpetrating crimes of this nature frequently advance spurious justifications that are swallowed whole by their followers.
But the media should not aid that process. If the misuse of language is hardly the most serious cause for concern in a world of turmoil, publishers and broadcasters have a moral duty to recognise that real anger or distress can be aroused by carelessness with the written or spoken word.
The duty does not end there. “Terrorism” seems a simple enough word at first glance. It may fairly be defined as an act or series of acts carried out by a group with religious, political or ideological objectives but no lawful mandate, against a properly constituted authority or to cause terror to the population as a whole.
But history reveals dubious examples of its use. The Nazis routinely denounced French resistance fighters as terrorists. The suppression of dissidents in Soviet Russia was linked by Moscow to the need to defeat terrorism. Governments have been led or inspired by statesmen and women who were previously called terrorists.
Nelson Mandela was still imprisoned, and not yet leader of the African National Congress, when Margaret Thatcher described the ANC as a “typical terrorist organisation”.
Fellow Conservatives were known to put it more crudely. Years later, the late South African president was warmly welcomed at Buckingham Palace by Queen Elizabeth II to mark his 90th birthday.
In the eyes of successive administrations in the US, the Afghan Mujahideen went from being “freedom fighters” defending their country against Soviet invaders to “terrorists” promoting attacks on the West and western interests.
It is difficult to imagine more clear-cut instances of terrorism than those ISIL is proud to proclaim. But we should not rush to criticise editors who cautiously permit use of the term only when it is attributed.
The language of war can be every bit as objectionable as the language of extremism. The reasonable person cringes on hearing the loss of civilian life, during attacks on military targets, described as collateral damage. “Mopping up” is an obscene way of saying enemy forces have been killed. References to “carpet bombing” and “body bags” send shivers down many spines. “Friendly fire” is just as lethal as the unfriendly variety.
Words may not kill, but they can and do hurt and it is therefore no bad thing to treat them with care.
Colin Randall is a former executive editor of The National