Reuters admits succumbing to terrorists’ threats and intimidation

[Terri]

Reuters admits succumbing to terrorists’ threats and intimidation

Maariv International

Reuters, one of the world’s leading information services used extensively by the international media has admitted it has a policy of never using the term terrorists or terrorism in its stories.

This came out when the CanWest Group, Canada’s largest newspaper chain decided to exercise its editorial prerogative when using material obtained from Reuters.

Last week the National Post, one of the group’s papers, changed a Reuters piece that read “…the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which has been involved in a four year revolt against Israeli occupation”, to “…the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a terrorist group waging a four year campaign of violence against Israel”.

More (http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction =article&articleID=11130)

[AceAustin]

I am not sure why this is a big deal just drop the by line and move on. I think but I may be wrong that you can say this article contributed by Rueters has been edited by or most of the information in this article was supplied by Rueters etc. if you want to say your source of info you could say information source that contributed to this article was from Rueters.

[MissCoors]

The "big deal" is the total lack of credibility of a news agency that caters to any particular group or party--this is appeasement on a global scale. Remember, CNN did the same thing with their "news" bureau in Iraq.

[Menachem Ben Yakov]

Language is realy at the heart and soul of the war against terror and the war being fought at home between those that love America and those that hate her.
Nothing exemplifies that better than the mutation of a terrorist to a militant.
At home in the war to undermine our values the word diversity has displaced the word exellence as the ideal to be strived for.
Does any thinking person care about the color of a doctors skin as opposed to his ability? A pilots?
Does diversity mean we should allow terrorists to propogandize over the world press because we must listen to everyone , thus anyone , despite how heinous their oppinions?

[Basheva]

Quote[/b] ]Language is realy at the heart and soul of the war against terror

This is certainly true. But I would go further and say that words are at the heart of any battle for any cause.

Hitler used words before he used gas ovens.

Reagan clearly defined the Soviet Union when he called it the "evil empire." That put a name on the enemy and after that the battle became clearer.

George Bush did the same when he named Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "evil empire."

You can't fight an enemy if you can't clearly name it.

It's like a doctor making a diagnosis. Treatment can't begin until you can name the disease.

Reuters and it's ilk refuse to name the disease.

[Floridaguy]

Quote[/b] ]You can't fight an enemy if you can't clearly name it.
Agreed. And in so naming an enemy, you define them for others. It is even true in political campaigns, as well. Labels carry identification of something or someone people might not be familiar with.

[mtnwoods]

Quote[/b] ] Does diversity mean we should allow terrorists to propogandize over the world press because we must listen to everyone , thus anyone , despite how heinous their oppinions? Well said. The answer to some is,sadly, "Yes" .