Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: seamole
This is an explanation issued by Reuters on October 2, 2001 concerning their policy on not using the word terrorist to describe those who hijacked aircraft to attack the World Trade Center and the U.S. Pentagon, September 11, 2001.

Below is the text of a letter sent to the editors of certain US newspapers:

We write in response to the confusion surrounding the use of the word "terrorist" in Reuters news stories.

We lost six members of the Reuters family and offices that housed 550 others who thankfully survived. From the first moments after the attacks, Reuters staff around the world worked tirelessly to account for their colleagues, restore our information services to customers, and report the news.

However, these efforts have been overshadowed by the controversy over the policy of our Editorial group to avoid using emotional terms such as "terrorist" in their news stories. This policy has served Reuters and, more importantly, our readers well by ensuring access to news as it occurs, wherever it occurs. As a global news organization reporting from 160 countries, Reuters mission is to provide accurate and impartial accounts of events so that individuals, organizations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts.

Nonetheless, in an internal memo reminding our journalists of our policy in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, a statement was made that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This wording caused deep offense among members of our staff, our readers and the public at large, many of whom felt this meant Reuters was somehow making a value judgment concerning the attacks. This was never our intention, nor is it our policy. Our policy is to avoid the use of emotional terms and not make value judgments concerning the facts we attempt to report accurately and fairly. We apologize for the insensitive manner in which we characterized this policy and we extend our sympathy to all those who have been affected by these tragic events.


13 posted on 11/07/2003 8:26:16 AM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: sam_paine
Let's see. Reuters claims that it avoids the word "terrorist" in its reports on the Middle East not exactly because "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," as they remarked after 9/11, but because "terrorist" is too colorful and emotional a word and they want to be objective.

Yet does anyone imagine for a second that the opening of this article is "objective" and free of judgmental sorts of emotions? "President George Bush's calls for democracy RANG HOLLOW in the Middle East, where many said on Friday they were APPALLED. . . ." Oh, yes, how neutral this language is. But I forgot, Reuters only has to be neutral about Arab terrorists, not about President Bush.
17 posted on 11/07/2003 8:34:12 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson