One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’s Freedom Fighter

Reuter's Editorial Policy ^

[Rosencrantz]

Verbatim from Reuter's online editorial policy:

Why don't you describe terrorists as terrorists?

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. We abstain from judgement and believe that the word terrorist is a loaded term, preferring to use a more specific word, such as gunman, bomber, etc.

[Rosencrantz]

If you're going to be THAT PC about it, shouldn't it be "One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter"??!

Ridiculous.

[Tin Man Tex]

LOL Great point. I gather these jerks think targeting civilians is just another strategy. "Fighters" don't kill women and children.

[Pete53]

Sure is funny how the left describes terror.

[TexRef]

Well, one man's gunman is another man's hero.

Aren't policemen also gunmen???

[MarkWar]

>"We abstain from judgement..."

They abstain from thinking. They abstain from values. They abstain from humanity...

It's tempting to saying something like, They may abstain from judgement, but rest assured they will be judged themselves... But, hey, they're a corporation and who ever sits in judgement of a corporation?! God's certainly not in the business of redeeming corporations so God won't judge them. Are the individual employees going to be held accountable for the scummy decisions of their executive board? Mark W.

[BubbaLaw]

Shouldn't that be "gunperson"? I've never noticed anyone in the media showing any concern about offending conservatives. Why they hell are they so converned about offending terrorists?

[Rosencrantz]

HA! An excellent point...

[He Rides A White Horse]

They abstain from thinking. They abstain from values. They abstain from humanity...

I think yours is an excellent summary.

[TrueBeliever9]

One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Oppressor!

[VRWCmember]

Ronald Reagan refuted this ridiculous notion years ago. To paraphrase the great President, (and to add my own words):
I reject the notion that one man's terrorist is another man's "Freedom Fighter". People that can be called "Freedom Fighters" do not hijack civilian passenger jets. Freedom Fighters do not bomb shopping centers and restaurants where families are eating or sight-seeing. Freedom Fighters do not bomb schools or day-care centers where children are learning. Freedom Fighters do not target innocent civilians. These are acts of terrorists and any attempted moral equivalence between these despicable acts and those of "Freedom Fighters" is a complete lie straight from the pit of hell.

[rumblefish71]

So who are the freedom fighters? Certainly not the US who bombs civilians on a regular basis. Certainly not the culprits behind the WTC/Pentagon bombing.

[Terriergal]

I guess then it comes down to which man is right and which is wrong. Hmm....

[BikinLiLo]

Here is one reply I received.
REUTERS POLICY REGARDING EDITORIAL POLICY
The loss of life and destruction in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania two weeks ago has affected Reuters and its employees deeply. Six of our own staff are missing, in addition to many colleagues and friends.
Throughout this difficult time we have strictly adhered to our 150-year-old tradition of factual, unbiased reporting and upheld our long-standing policy against the use of emotive terms, including the words 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'. We do not characterize the subjects of news stories but instead report their actions, identity and background.
As a global news organization, the world relies on our journalists to provide accurate accounts of events as they occur, wherever they occur, so that individuals, organizations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts.
The integrity of those accounts -- and the safety of our journalists in hotspots around the world who provide them -- depend on our adherence to these long-held principles.
Nancy Bobrowitz Senior Vice President Corporate Commuications nancy.bobrowitz@reuters.com

[John Jamieson]

This is BS. I did a google search on reuters and terrorists and found hundreds of articles.

[ex-snook]

""Fighters" don't kill women and children."

"The U.S. in Serbia? Iraq? Sudan? Wace? Rudy Ridge? what are you talking about?"

Let's see some rules now. #1 Terrorism is when someone kills people with a bomb using a car or his back. People killed are called "innocent civilians". If you have an airforce or wear a uniform it can't be called a terrorism and people who get killed are called 'collateral damage'.

#2 Exception to above rule. The Jewish people tried for 2000 years to get their land back. Now the Irish want their land back too. Both, in the past, used bombs to get the British to leave. Only the IRA used terrorism.

[william clark]

Okay, here's another loaded term for which "gunman" or "bomber" may be substituted: murderer

[Aric2000]

When you on purposely TARGET innocent Women and Children and non-combatants, you are a TERRORIST!!

Targeting a military facility and accidentally kill civilians around that target, it is indeed called Collateral damage. What are you going to do, announce to your enemy that you are going to strile thier communications headquarters at such and such a time and they had better make sure there are no civilians in the area?

GET A FRICKING CLUE!!!

[VRWCmember]

So who are the freedom fighters?

The term "freedom fighter" has traditionally been used to refer to those who engage in guerilla warfare against military/government targets in attempts to overthrow totalitarian governments. The term is legitimate whether the revolutionaries are fighting against a left-wing or right-wing regime as long as the targets of the attacks are government/military and not civilian.

Military or paramilitary operations AIMED at civilians should be labeled as terrorism. (Which would mean that Janet Reno qualifies as a terrorist.)

[Billthedrill]

"Terrorist" actually does have a rather more specific definition than all that - it is an individual who commits acts of violence intended to undermine social order by causing anxiety in the population that its members are under potential attack at any time. That is precisely what this act entailed, and judging by the reactions of people around me, has succeeded in producing.

Reuters knows this, of course. If it intends to blur the distinction between this term and the rather vaguer, more generic "freedom fighter" it can only be doing so with the intention of avoiding the negative emotional connotation of the former. But it is as propagandistic to avoid such connotations where they are due as it is to avoid them where they aren't. Reuters thinks that by failing to make a value judgement in this case they are serving the interests of objectivity. They aren't.