PJ and language: What exactly is a massacre?

(Coleraine, Northern Ireland) The most lively discussion yesterday at Ulster University (UU) in Coleraine centered around language, and specifically the word “massacre.”

I was in Coleraine visiting with UU master’s in journalism students as part of an ongoing peace journalism project in Northern Ireland sponsored by the US Embassy-London/US consulate Belfast.

One bright, skeptical student (my favorite kind) said he understood avoiding inflammatory language when reporting controversy. But he believed that using terms like “massacre” is okay in stories like school shootings since “no one is on the shooter’s side.”

At UU-Coleraine. Photo by Allan Leonardrd

Another articulate student said he thinks it’s acceptable to manipulate words and emotions in a story like a school shooting if it can stir people into action.

I disagreed with both students.

To the first student, I commented that in instances like mass shootings, the point of PJ more about rejecting subjectivity and avoiding sensationalism. “Massacre” is an imprecise term—how many killed, exactly, constitutes a “massacre?” The term also starts us down a slippery slope towards sensationalism. If “massacre” is okay, then what’s next—“bloody slaughter?” Present the facts, and let the reader decide if a massacre occurred, I said.

As for the second student who wants to stir people into action, I asked, when is it okay for journalists to feed people’s emotions? Who decides? As journalist Allan Leonard (who attended the session) pointed out, it’s ironic that peace journalism is often criticized for not being objective, yet in this instance it’s a traditional journalist who is willing to cross the line into advocacy.


I appreciated the thoughtful discussion (one of the best I’ve had) and the invitation by Prof. Milne Roundtree to come to UU. I look forward to my next visit to Coleraine.