Language, Violence, and Responsibility
How words can either expose violence or quietly erase it. A practical guide for reporters, editors, and newsrooms, inspired by the spirit of Dag Hammarskjöld.
Preamble – In the Spirit of Dag Hammarskjöld
“We are not permitted to use words as a shelter from action. Language must illuminate, not obscure. It must reveal the truth, not replace it.”
Dag Hammarskjöld understood that language is not only a tool for reporting events, but a test of moral clarity. When words are softened, sanitized, or abstracted, reality becomes distant and responsibility becomes negotiable.
He warned that neutrality in the face of suffering is not impartiality, it is surrender. The United Nations was not created so that governments could escape responsibility. It was created so that responsibility could be made unavoidable.
“We cannot wash blood from events by washing words. If the victim disappears from our language, they will disappear from our conscience.”
The language we choose is not a stylistic decision. It is a measure of our courage.
When Language Dilutes Violence, Accountability Disappears
From Crime To “Logistics Problem”
This progression shows how a horrific crime can be slowly washed of its moral content. Each step removes the perpetrators from view and replaces them with neutral categories and technical concerns. Violence becomes a management issue rather than a call to justice.
Journalism that follows this slide from crime to context, from victim to process, does not only change words. It changes what the world believes is happening and what the world believes must be done.
How Language Weakens Moral Clarity
The table below shows how specific acts of violence and repression are frequently recast in softer language, and how that shift alters public understanding.
| Reality | Diluted Language | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Torture | Enhanced interrogation | Crime becomes technique. |
| Forced starvation | Food insecurity | Policy failure, not weapon. |
| State repression | Security operations | Victims become suspects. |
| Bombing civilians | Collateral damage | Intent is obscured. |
| Rape as a weapon | Conflict related sexual violence | Gendered brutality is abstracted. |
| Forced displacement | Migration flows | Coerced flight appears voluntary. |
| Ethnic persecution | Intercommunal tensions | Violence becomes symmetrical. |
| Child soldiers | Irregular combatants | Children disappear from the story. |
| Civilians outside formal armed forces | Illegal combatants | Any civilian can be framed as a target, while claiming the Geneva Conventions do not apply. This logic opens the door to atrocities. |
Red Flag Terms That Demand Scrutiny
Certain phrases are not always wrong, but they often signal that something is being softened or hidden. They should never pass into a text without being questioned and unpacked.
For Each Red Flag: How It Is Used, What It Means, What To Do
Often used to blur responsibility and discourage action.
As reported: “The conflict in Region X is a complex situation involving multiple actors.”
What it can mean: There is clear evidence of abuses by identifiable groups, but officials prefer ambiguity over accountability.
Journalist response: Identify the main actors, their roles, and who holds power. Complexity does not erase responsibility.
As reported: “Due to the complexity of the situation, no immediate intervention is possible.”
What it can mean: Someone has chosen not to intervene, despite available options.
Journalist response: Ask who made that decision, on what basis, and who pays the price.
A neutral term that often erases coercion, fear, and violence.
As reported: “Significant population movements occurred in the northern provinces.”
What it can mean: Villages were burned and thousands fled in terror.
Journalist response: Clarify whether people moved voluntarily or under threat. Use terms like forced displacement or expulsion when warranted.
As reported: “Humanitarian organizations are responding to recent population relocations.”
What it can mean: Civilians may have been forced out by armed groups or state policy.
Journalist response: Investigate who ordered or triggered these movements and why.
Erases the scale of harm, the victims, and the perpetrators.
As reported: “A security incident occurred near the market.”
What it can mean: Armed forces opened fire on protesters, killing or injuring civilians.
Journalist response: Specify exactly what happened, to whom, and who was responsible.
As reported: “Authorities are monitoring the security situation after yesterday’s incident.”
What it can mean: Ongoing violence is being downplayed as a single event.
Journalist response: Look for patterns and link events instead of treating each as isolated.
Frequently used to describe militarized control that may involve repression.
As reported: “Troops were deployed as part of a stabilization effort.”
What it can mean: Armed forces entered civilian areas and allegations of raids, arrests, and abuses are emerging.
Journalist response: Ask whether stabilization is protecting civilians or suppressing them and whose security is being prioritized.
As reported: “The government initiated stabilization operations in restive provinces.”
What it can mean: Dissent or minority communities are being targeted under a security label.
Journalist response: Challenge labels like restive or unstable and seek evidence of disproportionate force.
Moves the focus from deliberate obstruction to abstract logistics.
As reported: “Humanitarian access challenges persist in the region.”
What it can mean: Armed groups or officials are blocking aid on purpose.
Journalist response: Identify who is denying or delaying access and on what grounds.
As reported: “Convoys face access challenges due to the complex humanitarian situation.”
What it can mean: Aid is being used as a tool of pressure or punishment.
Journalist response: Report on the political uses of aid and name the actors controlling the checkpoints.
Often invoked to discourage scrutiny or delay disclosure.
As reported: “Due to the sensitive political climate, we must proceed cautiously.”
What it can mean: Revealing the truth would embarrass or threaten powerful actors.
Journalist response: Protect vulnerable sources, but do not protect the comfort of officials. Explain the pressures openly.
As reported: “No comment can be provided due to political sensitivities.”
What it can mean: There is information that someone does not want on the record.
Journalist response: Treat this as a story about transparency, censorship, or attempted narrative control.
Used to present political choices as technical limitations.
As reported: “Authorities cite capacity constraints in responding to the crisis.”
What it can mean: Resources exist but are misallocated or withheld.
Journalist response: Ask about budgets, priorities, and comparative spending. Identify where capacity is present but unused.
As reported: “Weak institutional capacity limits enforcement.”
What it can mean: Corruption, political protection, or lack of will is blocking enforcement.
Journalist response: Look for patterns of non enforcement and who benefits from them.
Turns human beings into an unfortunate side effect.
As reported: “Six civilians were killed as collateral damage.”
What it can mean: Six identifiable people were killed in a military strike that may have been avoidable.
Journalist response: Restore names, ages, and circumstances. Examine necessity, proportionality, and possible violations.
As reported: “Collateral damage is unavoidable in operations of this kind.”
What it can mean: Civilian harm is being normalized instead of minimized.
Journalist response: Question the premise. What alternatives existed? What measures were taken to protect civilians?
From Sanitized Blurb To Honest Reporting
The following example shows how several red flag terms can appear together in a single paragraph and how the story changes when they are replaced with accurate, accountable language.
“Due to a complex situation, local authorities launched stabilization efforts after a series of security incidents triggered population movements. Humanitarian agencies are facing access challenges because of capacity constraints. Officials stress that in such a sensitive political climate, certain losses should be regarded as collateral damage rather than deliberate harm.”
“Government backed militias burned six villages in the Northern Province over the past week, forcing an estimated 9,000 civilians, mainly from the Azu ethnic group, to flee across the border. Aid convoys have been repeatedly stopped and turned back at military checkpoints, despite requests from relief agencies. Local commanders admitted that food and medical supplies are being blocked to ‘pressure the population’. Four children and two elderly men were killed when an armed drone struck a civilian convoy that was attempting to escape the attacks. Despite these reports, officials continue to describe the situation as ‘voluntary movement’ and deny any deliberate targeting of civilians.”
The second version restores actors, intent, scale, and victims. It turns a managed narrative into an accountable record.
Call to Action – Dig Deep, Refuse Laundered Language
To report in the spirit of Dag Hammarskjöld is to insist that language serves truth and protection, not convenience and denial.
- Do not repeat official euphemisms without context or challenge.
- Name actors, not just events. Identify who decided, who acted, and who is affected.
- Restore intent, scale, and human detail whenever they are obscured.
- Turn every red flag phrase into a starting point for deeper investigation.
- Ask, before publishing: would the people living this story recognize themselves in what I have written.
Every time you replace a neutral phrase with an honest description, you narrow the distance between diplomatic comfort and human reality.
Commit to digging deeper in every reportThis guidance can be adapted as a newsroom style note, a training module, or an editorial charter for reporting on crisis and conflict.
