Mr. Steele,

A colleague of mine suggested I contact you for your views on the use of the words "terror," "terrorist" and "terrorism" in stories describing the incidents of last Tuesday. Our policy is to ban "terrorist" and "terrorism" while allowing for "terror attack" as a quick shorthand for the air attacks on the WTC and Pentagon when no other way to describe the incidents is available.

I am reasonably comfortable with these rules, though I think the rule on "terror attacks" is a bit of a cop-out -- a way of saying "terrorist attack" without violating the prohibition against that. Many of (my) colleagues, however, have resisted the bans in this case, arguing that the attacks were clearly intended to sow terror. I believe that these words are too loaded with value judgments, and while it may test our emotions, our responsibility as journalists forces us to be restrained and scrupulously objective. To those who question our policy, I ask, did we describe the U.S. attacks on Baghdad in 1991 as "terror attacks" even though they surely brought terror to the people of that city?

I would be very grateful if you would share your views on this issue.

(Name withheld by request)

Bob Steele responds:

I'd ask why the rules were created initially and whether they were they framed as "absolutes" or as "guidelines." To be sure, these are "loaded words" that carry connotation, albeit subjective meaning to those who use them and those who hear them. One person's terrorist is another person's warrior. Some see an act of terrorism while others see a fight for freedom.

I turned to the dictionary (as I imagine you folks did) in helping to parse these words and their meaning. "Terror" has several definitions, including "intense, overpowering fear...the ability to instill intense fear...violence promoted by a group to achieve or maintain supremacy."

While the word "supremacy" in that last definition might be debatable, the definitions work for me in application to what happened last week.

Terrorism is defined in my dictionary as "the systematic use of terror, violence, and intimidation to achieve an end." Again, that definition works for me in terms of what happened last week.

My approach to these situations is to recognize that word choice and meaning can and should be seriously debated in a newsroom, but to recognize in the end that the editor in charge has to make the call. It is, inescapably, a subjective decision that uses some objective tools (the dictionary definition, for instance).

Your decision is also complicated by how others use the terms. When government officials, victims, and citizens use the words "terrorism" and "terrorist," it is appropriate, I believe, to use their words in your stories. The words reflect their thoughts and their meaning, whatever that might be. It's the obligation of those who read your accounts to try to make sense of what the sources/story subjects are saying and what it means as the words reach an audience.

The bottom line: I would stay away from rigid rules that stop sound decision-making. Instead, I would apply guidelines for the use of these words (terror, terrorism, terrorist) that include talking points on the way in which the words might be used, by whom, and the various possible interpretations and consequences of their use. I also would use protocols for who should be involved in the newsroom discussions and how decisions should be made.

To be sure, this process is harder than just applying rules that say "don't." But that's what good ethical decision-making is all about.