Thursday, September 09, 2004

Terror by any other name is, ah, non-judgemental

Jennifer Harper, the Washington Times, asks "If it wasn't 'terror,' then what was it?"
Editors hoped to "avoid the use of emotional terms and not make value judgments," Reuters explained at the time. According to spokesman Stephen Naru yesterday, that policy is still in place.
"It has never been the job of Reuters to characterize individuals or their actions, but to provide our readers with the facts and the context to allow them to form their own judgment," Mr. Naru said.

Descriptions are meant to be accurate and precise, with an "absence of emotion in vocabulary, so that events may be judged dispassionately."

Reuters reporters "should never refer to or label any specific individual or group as a freedom fighter, a terrorist, an extremist or a martyr," he continued, though they may refer "generically to terrorism, counterterrorism, anti-terrorist police, terrorism charges, fears of terrorist attacks or the war on terrorism.

Cox & Forkum "Noms de Guerre"

No comments: