Skip to comments.
Reuters: Not "terrorism," but "holy war"
Media Research Center's Cyberalert ^
| November 6, 2001
| Brent Baker
Posted on 11/06/2001 9:46:00 AM PST by Mr. Mulliner
Reuters wont allow its staff to use the terms "terrorist" or "terrorism," outside of a quotation, to describe the September 11 incidents, but as James Taranto highlighted in his "Best of the Web" column for OpinionJournal.com, the wire service has no problem describing "the war against America as a holy one."
Taranto quoted from a Reuters dispatch by Sayed Salahuddin and Anton Ferreira, which carried a double byline of "Kabul/Washington." The second paragraph of the November 5 story:
"With the campaign now in its fifth week, a hard-line Pakistani Islamic party said on Monday that thousands of pro-Taliban fighters had crossed into Afghanistan, armed with rocket launchers and swords, to wage holy war against the United States." To read the entire Reuters story, go to: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011105/ts/attack_dc_664.html
To refresh your memory on the Reuters refusal to use the word "terrorism," refer back to the September 25 CyberAlert which reported: There were no "terrorist attacks" on September 11, just "attacks" according to Reuters since the wire service decided that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Following this decree, one Reuters story gave life to inanimate objects as a reporter asserted that "two hijacked planes attacked the twin towers." On Monday night FNCs panel decried the values-neutral approach. Go to: http://www.mrc.org/news/cyberalert/2001/cyb20010925.asp#1
TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
Another ping for the Citizen's Coalition for Responsible Media
Reuters is just as bad as ABC news with their terrorist from Canada.
posted on 11/06/2001 9:49:41 AM PST
If they refuse to use the word, then technically they are harboring the terrorists.
Well, "Rooters" did their thing for Gore during the last election, so backing Bin Laded is just the "same old, same old" for this bunch.
Who owns Reuters?
posted on 11/06/2001 10:05:35 AM PST
by Bigg Red
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
To: Bigg Red
Who owns Reuters?
Someone posted a couple days ago that a Saudi Arabian owned Reuters.
"Reuters wont allow its staff to use the terms "terrorist" or "terrorism," outside of a quotation, to describe the September 11 incidents..."
Reuters=scumbag logic just like CNN!
posted on 11/06/2001 11:53:52 AM PST
Terrorists Kill or abduct Unarmed Non-Combatants, and wear masks to hide their faces from those who would manfully fight them. The American Revolutionaries killed soldiers and government officials. While proudly making their identity and intentions plain for the entire world to see.
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
HEY CCRM: they also have no problem calling the dead Muslim terrorists "martyrs."
posted on 11/06/2001 2:09:13 PM PST
"To refresh your memory on the Reuters refusal to use the word "terrorism,"
Notice how Fox now calls it "The Hunt for the Killers",
not "The Hunt for Terrorists"
You moron, how dare you. Since when did American Patriots storm English beaches to slaughter thousands of their citizens?
When did the Patriots attack innocent civilians here in the USA? Their fight was against British TROOPS. Get a life, scumbag.
To: Bigg Red
Who owns Reuters?
Publicly traded. Symbol "RTRSY" over the counter last I checked (which was about 8 years ago).
Comment #17 Removed by Moderator
To: Go Dub Go
It means some terrorists are luckier than others.
Excellent response, Yehuda!
Comment #20 Removed by Moderator
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator
Don't get riled. I interpreted your statement the same way GuillermoX did and at least one other person on this thread did too.
Comment #23 Removed by Moderator
Comment #24 Removed by Moderator
You're a fine one to call someone's intellect into question, Maroon:
If you disagree with this premise than how do you describe the American Revolutionaries? post #7
then \"then\ adv 1 : at that time 2 : soon after that : NEXT 3 : in addition : BESIDES 4 : in that case 5 : CONSEQUENTLY © 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
than \"thn, "than\ conj 1 used after a comparative adjective or adverb to introduce the second part of a comparison expressing inequality 2 used after other or a word of similar meaning to express a difference of kind, manner, or identity © 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
posted on 11/06/2001 4:05:12 PM PST
Comment #26 Removed by Moderator
I'd say you should walk the plank, but the tea is probably still floating in the Boston Harbor, so you'd end up running away! LOL
posted on 11/06/2001 4:31:44 PM PST
Comment #28 Removed by Moderator
Comment #29 Removed by Moderator
I think that we should stop referring to them as "jouralists" and start calling them by their proper name....Fabricators. These "professionals" take stories that are important and shove them to page 3456 and "elaborate" (a fancy word for outright lie) on a story that the corporation wants publicized.
CNN is a prime example, see other posts on the CNN stories.
Thanks God that there are still a few "honest" reporters left, but they are fading fast.
posted on 11/06/2001 5:12:29 PM PST
Sorry, I'm not into 'see' food. Bwahahaha
posted on 11/06/2001 5:20:31 PM PST
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson