The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has come under criticism over its coverage of the recent terrorist attack on a Rangers headquarters in Karachi, with concerns being raised over the language used to describe the attackers.
The attack, claimed by the banned militant group Jamaat-ul-Ahrar (JuA), targeted a local Rangers headquarters in Karachi. While Pakistani authorities described the incident as a terrorist attack, the BBC’s Urdu report referred to the attackers as “shiddat pasand” (extremists) and used the respectful Urdu pronoun “unhon ne” while narrating the incident.
The wording has triggered debate among journalists, victims of terrorism, and social media users, who argue that the language used appears overly respectful toward those responsible for an act of terrorism.
Pakistan has remained one of the countries most affected by terrorism, suffering thousands of civilian and security force casualties and incurring significant economic losses over the past two decades. Analysts argue that media plays a critical role in countering terrorism by informing the public, exposing extremist narratives, and preventing the glorification or normalization of terrorist organizations.
Critics argue that the use of accurate and precise terminology is a fundamental principle of responsible journalism, particularly when reporting terrorist attacks. They contend that referring to members of a banned militant organization as merely “shiddat pasand” instead of terrorists creates confusion and weakens public messaging against terrorism.
The BBC’s reporting has also renewed criticism from some observers who have previously accused the broadcaster of biased reporting on issues relating to Pakistan, including its coverage of Kashmir and regional security matters.
The controversy has also prompted wider questions regarding editorial consistency. Critics have asked whether the BBC would use similar terminology if a comparable attack were carried out against security forces or civilians in London or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The debate has further intensified over the BBC Urdu report’s use of the respectful expression “unhon ne” while describing the attackers, with critics arguing that such wording is inappropriate when reporting acts of terrorism.
Supporters of stronger terminology maintain that terrorism is a humanitarian issue rather than a political one and that media organizations have a responsibility to clearly identify perpetrators of terrorist violence. They argue that avoiding the word “terrorist” in such cases risks diminishing the gravity of the crime and may inadvertently contribute to the normalization of extremist violence.
The controversy surrounding the BBC’s reporting has once again reignited discussions about journalistic ethics, editorial responsibility, and whether international media organizations should adopt clearer language when covering terrorism.
