Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 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.

Reuters has made it quite clear that "Goons" is not a word Reuters would 
use. 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.

>> 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?

Yes. In fact I gave a lift to the station to one about a month ago.

>> 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.

>> 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.

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".

>>>>> 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.

On the contrary, they are providing news, as opposed to propaganda.

> "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.

> 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. 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. 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.

>> 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.

-- 
"A large number of aliens have been applying themselves to studying in 
various areas inclusive of studying Japanese" - Masuda Nobuya, Director 
General, Immigration Bureau.