Here’s another small piece of local media history, found in an old file.

In June 1971, the Honolulu Media Council (now known as Media Council Hawaii) approved the recommendations of a committee assigned to review a complaint about the terms used in reporting on the war in Indochina.

Witeck complained that terms such as “enemy”, “Reds”, “Communist China”, “Red China”, and “Viet-Cong” should be replaced by more objective terms.

The Media Council assigned a committee to review the matter, consisting of Witeck, Rev. Robert W. Fiske, State Ombudsman Herman Doi, John Kerneil, and Ah Jook Ku.

The committee filed a brief report and series of recommendations on May 26, 1971.

According to the report:

After discussion, our committee concluded that the basic problem we face is inaccurate and oversimplified reporting by the use of certain “umbrella” terms to cover a wide variety of people, places and events. We do not believe the news media deliberately seek to mislead or “miseducate” people by the use of such terms, but that demands for brevity and ease in reporting dictate the selection of terms. It is, at best, inexact reporting. At worst, it creates and maintains certain negative images in the minds of the listening and reading public.

The committee recommended several questions to be considered in reporting war news. One of them caught my eye, as it would certainly apply directly to today’s reporting on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When death tolls are announced, who actually has been killed? Are they military personnel, or are they civilians? Can everyone who is killed be accurately described as an enemy? Is a person an “enemy” simply because he has been killed by the South Vietnamese?

As I read current news of drone missile attacks and “insurgents” killed, the Media Council’s assessment seems as timely as ever.