| Archives Threads we can't stand to throw away. |
|
View Poll Results: Do you trust Reuters News Service? | |
Yes. Their reasons are perfectly valid and doesn't affect their news reporting.
|     | 5 | 41.67% | |
No. I expect real facts and not whitewashed ones in order to protect journalists from harm or to keep lines of communication open.
|    | 6 | 50.00% | |
I don't watch the news.
|    | 1 | 8.33% |
10-05-2001, 10:08 AM
| | Epinions Members | | Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Colorado
Posts: 15,133
| |
Reuters is a news organization out of the UK, similar in nature to our Associated Press (AP).
Reuters has declared that they will not refer to the terrorists as "terrorists." Instead, they will use the politically-correct term, "hijackers."
They've come up with a variety of reasons as to why, with probably the only one that might be considered koser is that Reuters journalists are put in harm's way and they don't want them to be targets of attacks or prevent them from access to other "hijackers" and get interviews, etc. by being offensive.
My question is, if a news-gathering organization is willing to whitewash the truth, can you trust them to not whitewash the news? What else could they not be reporting on in order to keep their journalists "safe" or not to offend? |
10-05-2001, 11:16 AM
|  | Epinions Members | | Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: in the palm of your hand
Posts: 12,708
| |
Political leaders whitewash the truth all the time so news organizations doing the same is no big surprise to me. Our political leadership called the Korean War a “police action” and continues to refer to the killing of civilians as “collateral damage”. |
10-05-2001, 11:19 AM
|  | Epinions Members | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: South of Bawlmer
Posts: 6,405
| |
True, Erik, but we're not talking about the government. We're talking about the people who are supposed to expose the government and keep them in check.
So how is Reuters going to refer to "anti-terrorism legislation" -- is it going to be "anti-hijacker legislation?" I am disgusted by Reuters and wonder now if some of our more avid news readers out there can tell me which news outlet can still be deemed "journalists".
__________________
''Resolve not to let the defeat of your favorite candidate shatter your faith in America or turn you away from politics. There will be another day. Remember the Red Sox.''
David Broder |
10-05-2001, 11:22 AM
|  | Mom of the Four Men | | Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Canada, sort of
Posts: 17,475
| |
Quote: Reuters has declared that they will not refer to the terrorists as "terrorists." Instead, they will use the politically-correct term, "hijackers."
| Since when is using a more descriptive word 'whitewash'? Yes, they were terrorists, but they hijacked those planes. Using only the word 'terrorist' seems to be deliberately promoting panic and hysteria, IMO.
Besides which, if they use the word 'terrorists', then, once things really get going, how will we be able to tell the difference between our target and our 'allies'? 
Cindy |
10-05-2001, 11:35 AM
| | Epinions Members | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: South of Bawlmer
Posts: 6,405
| |
I'm probably wrong (I so often am!) but my concept of a hijacker is one who takes a plane to get somewhere or to bargain for a political cause.
The "hijackers" became "terrorists" when they made it clear there would be no deal-making and no final destination except for an afterlife. Here are dictionary.com's results for "hijacker" The key phrase here is "alternative destination". And here are the results for "terrorism" (the root of terrorist) The key word here is "intimidation".
Which is more accurate? And wouldn't an esteemed news outlet such as Reuters want to use the most accurate? It is nice that they want to be "safe" for their employees, but I think most journalists who put themselves in that position are already aware how dangerous their job is.
__________________
''Resolve not to let the defeat of your favorite candidate shatter your faith in America or turn you away from politics. There will be another day. Remember the Red Sox.''
David Broder |
10-05-2001, 11:39 AM
| | Mom of the Four Men | | Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Canada, sort of
Posts: 17,475
| |
Before we all do a number on Reuters, can we see a link to this story? So far, we are all discussing someone else's report of what was said. I just don't like the idea that if Jeff doesn't like Reuters' decision, then they are automatically doing it to be "P.C.".
I want to see what they are saying for myself.
Cindy |
10-05-2001, 11:43 AM
|  | Sob Sister | | Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 127
| |
The only thing that shocks me about this thread is the implication that ANY news service, or any portion of the news media for that matter, has ever been trustworthy.
Am I alone in believing, as I have for years, that most of the "news" we receive is more likely than not whitewashed and/or biased to meet some one or others' agenda?
In the immortal words of Sheena Easton. "Oh please!" |
10-05-2001, 11:54 AM
| | Epinions Members | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: South of Bawlmer
Posts: 6,405
| |
Very good point, Cindy!
Thanks for putting me back on track!
:-)
__________________
''Resolve not to let the defeat of your favorite candidate shatter your faith in America or turn you away from politics. There will be another day. Remember the Red Sox.''
David Broder |
10-05-2001, 12:06 PM
|  | Epinions Members | | Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: The Nutmeg State
Posts: 13,778
| |
I agree with a lot of you.
I agree with Eric because the government white-washes the truth and reports it to the media. So, from the get-go we get misinformation. Then, I agree with Juliette, that the media white-washes the truth for political, and/or personal objectives. And I agree with Cindy's point, that we don't have a direct source here. We have Jeff's report of (presumably a newspaper article) what Reuters is doing.
So, my point, is always consider the source. Never accept anything that someone else tells you, whether they be a peer, the media, or the goverment, as gospel, without doing your own research.
For the record, I have been searching online for an article about this story, and haven't found one yet. If anyone manages to find a link, please post it. |
10-05-2001, 12:39 PM
| | Epinions Members | | Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Colorado
Posts: 15,133
| |
I've been hearing this on the radio for several days. Surely I'm not the only one who has heard this, right? I've heard this on the ABC radio news network and the CBS radio news network. I've heard them go on to say that they will not follow suit.
Erik, it's not referring to "terrorism" that they're referring to, it's the terrorists from September 11th that they're referring to. |
10-05-2001, 12:46 PM
|  | Usagi Yojimbo | | Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: The Birthplace of American Democracy
Posts: 16,777
| |
The term "hijack" means (among other things) "To seize control of (a moving vehicle) by use of force, especially in order to reach an alternate destination." That certainly includes what we saw on 9/11, so it is not an incorrect use of the term. Even if you DON'T consider the upper floors of the World Trade Center an alternate destination.
It is less clear (to me) that there people were terrorists in the usual sense of the term. Why is that? Because we don't necessarily have confirmation of their motives. I think it would be accurate to call them "hijackers," "murderers," and "killers." It might also be accurate to call them "terrorists" but I see no problem using the other terms because we know that they are hijackers and killers. I may be willing to leap to the "terrorist" conclusion, but I don't feel Reuters is under obligation to use the term.
I think it's truly nit picking to criticise them on using "hijacker." I would understand the objections if Reuters was calling them "freedom fighters" or "warriors of god" or "martyrs." But, "hijackers?" Really.
When they are reporting on "anti-terrorism" legislation, they are simply using the term that the politicians are using for the legislation, so there is no contradiction there.
-JP |
10-05-2001, 01:05 PM
| | Epinions Members | | Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 413
| |
Quote: Originally posted by drmomentum
I think it's truly nit picking to criticise them on using "hijacker." I would understand the objections if Reuters was calling them "freedom fighters" or "warriors of god" or "martyrs." But, "hijackers?" Really.
-JP | Like Jeff, I'm hearing this reported widely, from several sources, but I haven't read anything about it in print.
One quote that keeps popping up is Reuters stating they avoid the word terrorist, because one person's terrorist in another persons freedom fighter.
__________________
CeeJay
|
10-05-2001, 01:13 PM
|  | Epinions Members | | Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Northeast Malibu
Posts: 5,863
| |
One quote that keeps popping up is Reuters stating they avoid the word terrorist, because one person's terrorist in another persons freedom fighter. [/b][/quote]
I've heard this same quote on ABC radio news. What does Reuters plan to call those terrorists who were not on the planes? Perhaps "hijack-helpers", which sounds like an inoffensive sort of boxed bad food. |
10-05-2001, 02:57 PM
|  | I'm against it. | | Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 551
| |
It kind of seems to me that, if Reuters is indeed deciding to use the term "hijackers" rather than "terrorists," they are actually being MORE objective. And wouldn't that make them better journalists?? Wasn't there a thread here recently about news anchors wearing flag pins?? To me, it's the same sort of thing.
We know for a fact that these guys hijacked four planes. Terrorism, on the other hand, is sort of a more subjective term.
But, then again, maybe we're getting a bit too caught up in semantics.
Maybe we could just use the term "perpetrators?"
vania |
10-05-2001, 03:08 PM
| | Epinions Members | | Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Colorado
Posts: 15,133
| |
Quote: |
I may be willing to leap to the "terrorist" conclusion, but I don't feel Reuters is under obligation to use the term.
| I frankly don't care what term they use to describe the terrorists. I object to the reasons behind their refusal to use the term "terrorist" in describing the events of September 11th. Their main objectives are to keep their reporters safe from harm and to avoid offending people who are sympathetic to the same causes as what bin Laden purports to have.
Personally, I find that viewpoint as cowardly and makes me curious as to what else they're not reporting on in order to appease someone else.
I understand that our news is littered with instances of spin, etc. (I've been saying this for years). One of the reasons I've always preferred non-US news is that they tend to be more objective in their reporting of the news. I'm a big fan of BBC and Deutsche Welle for this very reason. I try and get news from various sources.
But what Reuters is doing stinks -- and not because they're trying to "remain objective" but rather because they're trying to protect reporters from harm. |
10-05-2001, 04:09 PM
| | Epinions Members | | Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: in the palm of your hand
Posts: 12,708
| |
Quote: Originally posted by poseidon
But what Reuters is doing stinks -- and not because they're trying to "remain objective" but rather because they're trying to protect reporters from harm.
| Would it make you feel better if some of their reporters got murdered? Is there something inherently wrong with an employer doing something that might reduce the chance that their employees might be injured or killed? |
10-05-2001, 04:16 PM
| | Usagi Yojimbo | | Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: The Birthplace of American Democracy
Posts: 16,777
| |
Quote: Originally posted by poseidon
But what Reuters is doing stinks -- and not because they're trying to "remain objective" but rather because they're trying to protect reporters from harm. | If remaining objective (what they should be doing in the first place) also protects their reporters from harm, I don't see the problem.
It's prudent for them to stick to the less emotional terms. It's Reuter's job to deliver us accurate news, not justify your anger. If using less emotional terms gets them closer to stories so that they can do a more effective job of keeping them informed.
It's probably quite an effort for the people at Reuters, who are as scared as many of us are, to remain obective. I'm glad they haven't given up that effort, as some people have. It tells me that they're more likely to be trustworthy, not less.
-JP |
10-05-2001, 06:05 PM
| | Epinions Members | | Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Colorado
Posts: 15,133
| |
Quote: Originally posted by erik_kosberg
Would it make you feel better if some of their reporters got murdered? Is there something inherently wrong with an employer doing something that might reduce the chance that their employees might be injured or killed? | I don't want to see anyone injured or killed. But at the same time, these journalists have a choice as to what they're going to cover and if they want to interject themselves in a dangerous situation or not. If they aren't willing to take the risk for a story and that all elusive Pulitzer Prize, then they should let someone else who is willing go ahead and try.
But when they're reporting on the news, I want the facts and I want all of it -- not just what they feel safe to tell me. |
10-05-2001, 10:53 PM
| | Usagi Yojimbo | | Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: The Birthplace of American Democracy
Posts: 16,777
| |
Quote: Originally posted by poseidon
But when they're reporting on the news, I want the facts and I want all of it -- not just what they feel safe to tell me. | They have said that their main reason for using the term is to be objective. Your argument has the same flaw that O'Sullivan's has in his editorial, revealed in this quote:
"Let me deal with these arguments in reverse order."
Jukes said "We're trying to treat everyone on a level playing field, however tragic it's been and however awful and cataclysmic for the American people . . ."
That's his defense of using objective language. He further goes on to say:
"we don't want to jeopardize the safety of our staff . . . in Gaza, the West Bank and Afghanistan . . ."
The second point is a possible consequence of biased reporting. By creatively taking it out on its own he inaccurately portrays the motive of Reuters.
O'Sullivan, to make an interesting article, has ignored the first part of the interview which he said he would return to, instead choosing to go back to the quote culled form the internal memo. He calls the argument "sophistry" but is it he who is engaging in some tricky reasoning to make his point.
As a side note, if you are upset about this, I am surprised you are not shocked by the edits that have occured in the official White House record of Ari Fleischer's press conference, discussed in an earlier thread. Whereas the Reuters story is simply the use of an objective and accurate term "hyjacker" instead of the term you prefer (for secondary motives you take to be primary) the other story is one of the government re-writing the record events. It's beyond spin.
-JP |
10-05-2001, 11:37 PM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 9,648
| |
I guess I'm more inclined to trust a news source who makes a bias a matter of public record than I am one who tries to claim objectivity when it clearly isn't.
In Britain, news providers (newspapers especially) wear their colours on their sleeves proudly. To get an 'objective' sense, I had the routine task each day of collecting nearly a dozen newspapers to see how the same story or issue was addressed in the Time, the Telegraph, the Independent, the Evening Standard, the Guardian, etc. Then I had to keep track of the radio and television broadcasts, and the weeklies and monthlies.
I learned which sources would have which biases, and I find that preferable.
On a side note, I remember lecturing once in the late 1980s in an international relations class. I referred to those fighting in Afghanistan as 'terrorists', and got quite a lot of shocked looks and comments at my choice of phrasing. I explained that the idea of 'terrorism' is a double-sided coin -- the Boston Tea Party and various other incidents near the beginning of America's Revolution could be classified as acts of terrorism.
I'd love to get a class roster from the registrar, and write to all the students of that class who were so shocked at my reference to terrorists in Afghanistan now... |
10-05-2001, 11:50 PM
| | Epinions Members | | Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Northeast Malibu
Posts: 5,863
| |
I sincerely doubt that either the British or any Boston colonials were "terrorized" by a little prank of dumping tea in the harbor. | |
When Poe ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.
