Steven Vincent, el periodista independent i crític d'art nord-americà assassinat dimarts a la nit a Bàssora, no rebrà gaires homenatges ni reconeixements de part de l'establishment periodístic. El conflicte de l'Iraq a través dels seus articles o del seu blog no responen a la visió "políticament correcte" que domina la majoria dels nostres mitjans de comunicació. Vincent, que es va negar sempre a portar escolta i que només anava acompanyat de la seva intèrpret, el van cosir a trets just després de publicar al "New York Times" un article en el que acusava el clergue xiïta, Moqtada al-Sadr, de manipular els xiïtes de Bàssora i d'incitar-los a la radicalització. Havia escrit un llibre sobre l'Iraq ("In the Red Zone") i n'estava preparant un altre sobre la ciutat de Bàssora, on vivia des de feia dos mesos.
Steven Vincent era un periodista que no qualificava els assassins iraquians de "resistents" i que s'oposava a la manipulació orwelliana de les paraules. Ho explicava en una entrevista que va concedir a Frontpagemag.com, el passat mes de desembre:
Words matter. Words convey moral clarity. Without moral clarity, we will not succeed in Iraq. That is why the terms the press uses to cover this conflict are so vital. For example, take the word “guerillas.” As you noted, mainstream media sources like the New York Times often use the terms “insurgents” or “guerillas” to describe the Sunni Triangle gunmen, as if these murderous thugs represented a traditional national liberation movement. But when the Times reports on similar groups of masked reactionary killers operating in Latin American countries, they utilize the phrase “paramilitary death squads.” Same murderers, different designations. Yet of the two, “insurgents”—and especially “guerillas”—has a claim on our sympathies that “paramilitaries” lacks. This is not semantics: imagine if the media routinely called the Sunni Triangle gunmen “right wing paramilitary death squads.” Not only would the description be more accurate, but it would offer the American public a clear idea of the enemy in Iraq. And that, in turn, would bolster public attitudes toward the war.La causa de la veritat avui està de dol.
Supporters of the conflict in Iraq bear much blame for allowing the terminology—and, by extension, the narrative—of events to slip from our grasp and into the hands of the anti-war camp. Words and ideas matter. Instead of saying that the Coalition “invaded” Iraq and “occupies” it today, we could more precisely claim that the allies liberated the country and are currently reconstructing it. More than cosmetic changes, these definitions reflect the nobility of our effort in Iraq, and steal rhetorical ammunition from the left.
The most despicable misuse of terminology, however, occurs when Leftists call the Saddamites and foreign jihadists “the resistance.” What an example of moral inversion! For the fact is, paramilitary death squads are attacking the Iraqi people. And those who oppose the killers--the Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, members of the Allawi government, people like Nour—they are the “resistance.” They are preventing Islamofascists from seizing Iraq, they are resisting evil men from turning the entire nation into a mass slaughterhouse like we saw in re-liberated Falluja. Anyone who cares about success in our struggle against Islamofascism—or upholds principles of moral clarity and lucid thought—should combat such Orwellian distortions of our language.
