The press and the terrorists

When Canada’s National Post changed a Reuters’ news story to characterize the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades as a terrorist group, it warranted the attention of the New York Times, and the managing editor of Reuters actually had the audacity to offer some criticism of the action.

The original Reuters line said: “… the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which has been involved in a 4-year-old revolt against Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank.”

The National Post changed it to: “… the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a terrorist group that has been involved in a 4-year-old campaign of violence against Israel.”

“Our editorial policy is that we don’t use emotive words when labeling someone,” David A. Schlesinger, Reuters’ global managing editor told the New York Times. “Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline. My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity.”

Integrity? Is that what they call moral blindness now?

I’ve got some emoting to do on this topic.

Reuters, and every other news agency in the world, use labels all the time – even WorldNetDaily, though, I would suggest, we apply them more carefully than most.

Take Reuters, for instance. The editors don’t like the word “terrorist” any more. But what about other labels? What about “right-wing”? I did a quick search and found dozens and dozens of examples of the gratuitous use of this term – and only occasionally referring to the hockey position.

What about “far right”? Again, bingo – lots of hits.

What about a less inflammatory label – like “moderate”? You’ll find Yasser Arafat and his minions constantly referred to with that label.

What about “hard-liner”? You’ll find Ariel Sharon is the only hard-liner in the Middle East.

But I thought Reuters editors didn’t believe in sticking labels on people – only in describing actions? That’s their story and they’re sticking to it. Guess what? No amount of evidence to the contrary will persuade them they are wrong.

They are wrong, however. They’re wrong about the word “terrorist,” too. If civilized people – and that includes most reporters and editors I know – cannot agree that what happened Sept. 11 was terrorism, we’ve got a real problem on our hands. What can we agree on, for heaven’s sake?

And, believe it or not, Reuters’ editors are even confused about that.

In fact, that’s when this new emotive policy began – right after the Sept. 11 attacks. Reuters’ editors couldn’t bring themselves to characterize the work of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as the work of terrorists.

Why are we mincing words? If anything, terrorism is not a strong enough term to describe this atrocity. This is ultra-terror, this is super-terror, this is hyper-terror. This is mass murder.

What’s wrong with these people? And, guess, what? Lots of U.S. journalists are agreeing with these journalistic extremists.

“I’m not sure they (Reuters editors) are making a mistake,” says Geneva Overholser, the former editor of the Des Moines Register and now a syndicated columnist. “Our professional strictures require us to give thoughtful consideration to matters that our fellow citizens would simply make an emotional decision on.”

Oh, give me a break. What professional strictures? Name them. Show them to me. I’ve been in this business 30 years and I’ve never seen such strictures – at least not rules that require us to forgo common sense and any judgment about right and wrong.

The day I do is the day I find a new line of work.