The BBC should stop referring to Islamic State killers as militants, and call them the terrorists they are, say MPs.

The broadcaster has an effective ban on the word terrorist, arguing that its impartiality could be thrown into doubt.

It says the term risks ‘implying judgment where there is no clear consensus about the legitimacy of militant political groups’.

The restriction means that millions of radio listeners and TV viewers routinely hear Islamic State maniacs described as militants on the airwaves.

But MPs across the political divide have attacked the policy, saying it was time to use plain English when describing cold-blooded killers.

The BBC should stop referring to Islamic State killers as militants, and call them the terrorists they are, say MPs

Although the BBC does not ban the word ‘terrorist’ outright, the corporation is explicit that journalists should modify their language. Where they slip up, the BBC’s Editorial Policy Unit sends journalists an email reminding them of its standards.

As a result, BBC presenters and writers routinely use the words ‘militant’ or ‘jihadists’ as substitutes, unless they are quoting someone directly.

Alternatively, they avoid using adjectives altogether and simply refer to Islamic State as a ‘group’.

In a 1,700-word article published on the BBC’s website earlier this week, and entitled What is Islamic state? the words ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorist’ do not appear once.

The closest the article gets are two references to America’s National Counterterrorism Center.

But Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen said: ‘“Militants” has the ring of placard waving strikers. The BBC can’t use the T word because they don’t want to be judgmental, but these are people who are willing to travel half way around the world to commit murder in cold blood.’

Labour MP John Mann said: ‘They should be called terrorists. That’s what they are.

‘There is no ambiguity. There is no doubt. They’re terrorists.’

Conservative Philip Davies added: ‘God help us all if the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, can’t describe things as they are. Are they not wanting to offend the IS terrorists? It is absolutely extraordinary.’

Their views are shared by BBC journalists who have privately expressed frustration that they were not able to describe the perpetrators of the recent Paris attacks accurately.

An insider said: ‘It’s inappropriate. Of course we should be allowed to call them terrorists. We just appear out of step with the public.’

However, the BBC argues that the word terrorist is too loaded with ‘value judgements’ – something it says it is desperate to avoid.

It tells staff: ‘Terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones and care is required in the use of language that carries value judgements. We try to avoid the use of the term “terrorist” without attribution…We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper”, “insurgent”, and “militant”.’

The broadcaster has an effective ban on the word terrorist, arguing that its impartiality could be thrown into doubt

BBC sources said that although the rules ‘made a lot of sense’ during the IRA bombings, when they were originally drawn up, they urgently needed redrawing for the current era.

‘I accept that in Northern Ireland, where there are licence fee payers who might not regard Gerry Adams as a terrorist, it was a difficult issue. But I also think it is pretty clear to everyone that IS are terrorists. The guidelines are just silly,’ said a BBC news source.

SINGLE WORD THAT DEFINES ISIS According to The New Oxford Dictionary of English, a terrorist is someone who uses ‘violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims’. A ‘militant’ is someone ‘combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favouring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods. [Eg] militant left-wing trade unionists.’ The BBC prefers the softer term because the word ‘terrorist’ can sound judgmental. ‘The value judgments frequently implicit in the use of the words “terrorist” or “terrorist group” can create inconsistency in their use or, to audiences, raise doubts about our impartiality,’ its guidelines state. The guidelines are policed by the Editorial Policy Unit, headed by David Jordan. They are signed off by the BBC’s governing body, the BBC Trust, chaired by Rona Fairhead. Advertisement

Yesterday, the BBC came up with a sample of articles to demonstrate exceptions to the rule. But whilst six of them referred to ‘terrorist attacks’, ‘threats’ or ‘offences’, it only described Islamic State as ‘terrorists’ on two occasions. ‘It’s quite extraordinary that the people behind the atrocities in Tunisia and Paris won’t be called terrorists,’ Mr Davies said. ‘What on earth are they?’

A BBC spokesman said: 'We’re sure the British public are in no doubt from our coverage that this is as murderous organisation. The BBC is committed to democracy and our history shows it. Our aim is to report accurately and we use the appropriate terms to do so.'

It is not the first time that BBC critics have pointed out that its effective ban on the word ‘terrorism’ is out of date.

In 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron criticised the broadcaster after it described the terrorists behind a hostage attack in Algeria as ‘militants’. He said: ‘These are terrorists and they should be described as such. This was a terrorist attack, it was to take hostages, to kill them, to kill innocent people and it should be condemned utterly.’