MARTIN KELLY,
Madam, - I am surprised that John Simpson of the BBC (November 8th) shows a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of the word "assassination".
He proposes that "assassination" carries the implication of the murder of a prominent figure. This is incorrect. An assassination describes the method in which a murder is carried out, that is: a killing by treacherous violence with an implicit reward, whether monetary or otherwise. It has nothing to do with the prominence of the person on whom it is inflicted. It is of course true that some prominent people have been assassinated, but it is equally true that many more non-prominent people have been also.
However, I am somewhat more surprised by the undertone of Mr Simpson's explanation and the intention of the original memo of the BBC insofar that the killing of prominent people warrants the use of different language than the killing of less well-known people.
All lives are equal and "targeted killing" is as repulsive as "collateral damage" or indeed "assassination".
I agree that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is very divisive, but objective reporters should insist on using the language that they feel best describes the situation, and not "sanitised" as directed. Factual reporting can affect external opinion and as it is likely that external intervention is the only way this conflict is going to be stopped, reporters have a further moral duty to report exactly what is happening. - Yours, etc.,
MARTIN KELLY, Monkstown, Co Dublin.