One of the topics we repeatedly have had cause to address over the years is the BBC’s use of language when reporting terrorism.
The corporation justifies its deliberate avoidance of the use of the words terror, terrorist and terrorism – except in quotes or citations – as a way of refraining from what it terms “implicit value judgements”, claiming that “[t]he perpetrators of extreme political or ideological violence are not viewed in the same way by all audiences”.
The public consultation that took place prior to the introduction of revised editorial guidelines in September 2025 showed that respondents regarded that BBC editorial policy as a major issue. However, no changes were made to the guidelines.
“The two biggest Guidelines issues that arose were in relation to gender identity and language around the use of the word ‘terrorist’. […]
A number of respondents argued that Hamas should always be called ‘terrorists’ and/or that the BBC should always refer to the Home Office’s list of proscribed organisations as ‘terrorist organisations’. The revised Guidelines on Impartiality (section 2), Accuracy (section 3). Conflicts of Interest (section 4) and War, Terror and Extreme Violence, Disaster and Disorder (section 12) are very clear on the requirements on the BBC when it comes to covering war and any terror related issues. The BBC does not ban the use of the word ‘terrorist’, but the Guidelines require it to be used with attribution. It was felt that no further changes were required.”
On April 13th the BBC News website published a report by James Gregory about the outcome of a trial in France in which readers are told that: [emphasis added]
“French cement maker Lafarge has been found guilty of paying millions of dollars in protection money to jihadist groups, including the group calling itself Islamic State (IS), to keep its business running in Syria during the civil war.
Eight ex-Lafarge employees were also found guilty of financing terrorism, including former CEO Bruno Lafont who was jailed for six years on Monday.
The court in Paris found that Lafarge paid groups $6.5m (€5.59m; £4.83m) between 2013 and 2014 to keep its plant operating in northern Syria.
Judge Isabelle Prevost-Desprez said such payments had allowed proscribed organisations to gain control of the country’s natural resources, enabling them to finance attacks across the Middle East and Europe.
“It is clear to the court that the sole purpose of the funding of a terrorist organisation was to keep the Syrian plant running for economic reasons. Payments to terrorist entities enabled Lafarge to continue its operations,” Prevost-Desprez said.”
Clearly the French court had no doubts about the terminology that should be used to accurately describe the organisations to which Lafarge paid protection money.
Nevertheless, the headline of the BBC’s report on that story reads “French cement giant guilty of financing militant groups including Islamic State”.
Gregory’s report is also remarkable due to a rather glaring omission.
In addition to what he chooses to describe as “the group calling itself Islamic State (IS)”, he informs BBC audiences of the involvement of another organisation.
“Nusra Front, which was affiliated to al-Qaeda and proscribed by the EU and others, was also among the groups Lafarge paid money to, judges said.”
Readers are not however informed that the person who headed the Nusra Front (also known as Jabhat al Nusra) at the time is now the Syrian president who was received at Downing Street and Buckingham Palace just two weeks ago.
Gregory also tells his readers that:
“Alongside Lafont, former deputy managing director Christian Herrault was given a five-year prison sentence, while Firas Tlass, a Syrian ex-member of staff who made the payments to the jihadist groups, was sentenced in absentia to seven years in jail.”
Firas Tlass (or Tlas) has been quoted or mentioned in a number of BBC reports over the years.
As noted above, the section of the BBC’s editorial guidelines on “War, Terror and Extreme Violence, Disaster and Disorder” addressing “Use of Language” states:
“Care is required in the use of language that carries implicit value judgements.”
And:
“Content makers should not adopt other people’s language as their own; their responsibility is to remain objective and report in a way that enables audiences to make their own assessments.”
The decision to describe proscribed terrorist organisations as “militants” in the headline to this report and on social media once again suggests that the BBC has convinced itself that even governmental terror designations and court rulings are subjective “value judgements” about which its audiences should “make their own assessments”.
Related Articles:
WHY DID BBC NEWS CUT THE WORD TERROR FROM THE HEADLINE OF AN ARTICLE ABOUT A TERRORISM TRIAL?
