Declan Murphy wrote:
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
>> Declan Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Declan Murphy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Declan Murphy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> Sorry, 'fraid not. Reuters has made it quite clear that its style 
>> guide is based on intimidation from goons.
> 
> 
> Reuters has made it quite clear that "Goons" is not a word Reuters would 
> use. 

Well, good thing I never suggested otherwise. Maybe you should object to
some other things that I have never said.

> As the man said, "Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive 
> words when labeling someone".
> 
> Compare:
> 
> "A spokesman for the group said that the roadside bomb was planted 
> because..."
> 
> with
> 
> "A murderous terrorist representing the group said that the roadside 
> bomb was planted because..."
> 
> and
> 
> "Vice President Cheney told us today that..."
> 
> with
> 
> "Gutless draft dodger & former Halliburton exec Dick Cheney told us 
> today that..."
> 
> The 1st and 3rd sentences would not only precede news, it would also 
> ensure that the reporters continued to be in a position where they could 
> continue to gather news from the 2 subjects above.

Er, ok. You seem to think that the use of "terrorist" is emotive and/or
editorializing. Why?

>> There is such a thing as Palestinian?
> 
> 
> Yes. In fact I gave a lift to the station to one about a month ago.

Maybe next week you can give an Atlantean a lift?

>>> 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.
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.

No, we have. For some reason, you delight in regaling us with it.
"My granny is/was (I don't know if she is cold in the ground) a
terrorist! Isn't that weird?"

>> 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.
> 
> 
> Sure. "A terrorist is what someone is called by those who find it 
> expedient to do so when that someone uses or threatens use of force or 
> violence for ideological, nationalistic or any other political reason".

Hmm. Seems overbroad to me, as every state and its military in the
history of the planet has used or threatened the use of force or
violence for ideological, nationalistic or any other political reason.

You should try again.

>> They are doing nothing of the kind. They are altering their language 
>> in response to intimidation.
> 
> 
> On the contrary, they are providing news, as opposed to propaganda.

Wow, so "news" is what happens when we alter our language to make sure
we don't anger those who threaten force? Perhaps "Pravda" was also a
news provider.

>> "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."
> 
> 
> Given the often callous disregard these and other organisations have 
> shown to their reporters and their families in the past, the cynic in me 
> suspects they are slightly more worried about the latter, or more 
> accurately, the profits that may be loss if the latter was perceived to 
> be compromised.

Perhaps poltroons should not be reporters in the company of terrorists.
They should stick to reporting about the Corn on the Cob Festival or the
election for city alderman.

Reporters' families? I don't give a shit. Fuck them. If the reporters 
are so worried about their families, they should go home and play with 
their kids.

Oh! Speaking of callous disregard for employees, why did you fire Brett?

>> 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?
> 
> 
> The news is being reported. 

They have made it quite clear that they are not reporting the news.
"We don't use words that make the terrorists upset."

CNN admitted to the same thing last year in the NY Times editorial, "The
News We Kept To Ourselves", in which CNN's chief news executive admitted
that CNN had spent 12 years whitewashing their coverage and kissing the
asses of the Iraqi leadership in order to keep the Baghdad bureau open.
http://tinyurl.com/5c6lg
"I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me"? No, asshole, 
you *report*. That's why you are called a "reporter" not a "bottle-upper".

Schlesinger made it even more clear in another interview where he said
there would be "serious consequences" if certain "people in the Middle
East" were to believe Reuters called such men "terrorists".
http://tinyurl.com/4hrvd

Journalists are there to report, not couch their language and whitewash
their reporting out of concerns for personal safety or profit.

> A subject is interviewed, the story wired. 
> It is not part of the news service to label the interviewees something 
> they clearly believe they are not. 

Who is "they"? The "news" service or the interviewee?

> Similarly, you would take offence if 
> Reuters described US soldiers in Iraq as a trigger happy, under trained, 
> poorly disciplined body with low morale - that would be commentary, and 
> while in many cases accurate, probably not text suitable for a newswire 
> company.

What may or may not offend me is irrelevant.

>>> 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?
> 
> 
> Is that what a you believe a straw man is? I've often wondered.

What do you call it when one responds to an argument that no one has made?

- Kevin