Declan Murphy wrote:
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
>> Declan Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Declan Murphy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Or call Islamofascists who shoot children in the back "insurgents" 
>>>>>> or militants. Actually, the "news" services such as Reuters 
>>>>>> already do that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would someone call insurgents, the resistance, militants, 
>>>>> freedom fighters or patriots something like "Islamofascists", and 
>>>>> then claim that newswires were not being objective through their 
>>>>> use of language?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because they are not. What does my terminology have to do with it? 
>>>> Nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>> The newswires are not being objective in their use of language?
>>
>>
>> Yes, they aren't. I am still trying to figure out why you are having 
>> problems understanding these simple declarative statements.
> 
> 
> No, they are. 

Sorry, 'fraid not. Reuters has made it quite clear that its style guide 
is based on intimidation from goons.

> What I understand is that you disagree with wires using 
> simple descriptive words such as for instance, "Palestinian Medical 
> officials", to describe, for instance, Palestinian Medical officials and 

There is such a thing as Palestinian?

> that you disagree with their insistance that their customers either use 
> the text as is, or remove the byline if they choose to alter the Reuters 
> product.

Who said I disagree with Reuters insistance that their customers use the 
text as is? You have missed the point entirely.

>>>> Reuters and other "news" services refuse to even use the word 
>>>> "terrorist". 
>>>
>>>
>>> Good - IMO a step in the right direction. There is an enormous 
>>> difference between news and infotainment. The distinctions are 
>>> becoming increasingly blurred, and not for the better.
>>
>>
>>  From an editorial in the Ottowa Citizen on the topic:
>> "Terrorism is a technical term. It describes a modus operandi, a 
>> tactic. We side with security professionals who define terrorism as 
>> the deliberate targeting of civilians in pursuit of a political 
>> goal.<snip>
> 
> 
> As the grandson of a "terrorist", I afraid I had a hard time keeping a 
> straight face reading that editorial. 

Yes, yes, we've all heard about your granny.

> A terrorist is not a word 
> "defined" to mean the deliberate targeting of civilians in pursuit of a 
> political goal, nor is there any universal definition. Michael Collins 
> was a terrorist. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. Menachem Begin was a 
> terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Except of course, to any of 
> their supporters or sympathizers.

Then maybe "you" could "define" "terrorist", then. And please don't drag 
out the old saw of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom 
fighter." These thugs fight for no one's freedom.

>>>> http://tinyurl.com/3lhro
>>>
>>>
>>> A very sensible policy.
>>
>>
>> Indeed. It is right and proper for a news service to couch its 
>> language in response to intimidation.
> 
> 
> On the contrary, it is right and proper for a news service to provide 
> news, as they are doing. 

They are doing nothing of the kind. They are altering their language in 
response to intimidation.

"Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at 
CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and 
possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations.

"My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial 
integrity," he said."

By admission, Reuters does not use "terrorist" in order to protect its 
reporters. If the "news" service is employing a given style and 
reporting based on threats from others, what makes you think that the 
news is being reported?

> It is their customers, who use/misuse the news 
> service product to fill in the gaps between the Nike and Coke 
> commercials and decide to sex up the text into something often quite 
> different to what was collected by the reporter in the field who are 
> responding to intimidation - primarily from their advertizers and 
> shareholders.

Why are you knocking down a straw man?

- Kevin