Reuters: Not "terrorism," but "holy war"

Media Research Center's Cyberalert ^ | November 6, 2001 | Brent Baker

[Mr. Mulliner]

Reuters won’t 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 FNC’s panel decried the values-neutral approach. Go to: http://www.mrc.org/news/cyberalert/2001/cyb20010925.asp#1

[Mr. Mulliner]

Another ping for the Citizen's Coalition for Responsible Media

[Texbob]

Reuters is just as bad as ABC news with their terrorist from Canada.

[Diogenesis]

If they refuse to use the word, then technically they are harboring the terrorists.

[San Jacinto]

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.

[Bigg Red]

Who owns Reuters?

[angry elephant]

Who owns Reuters?

Someone posted a couple days ago that a Saudi Arabian owned Reuters.

[ChaseR]

"Reuters won’t 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!

[CyberSpartacus]

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.

[xm177e2]

HEY CCRM: they also have no problem calling the dead Muslim terrorists "martyrs."

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"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"

[GuillermoX]

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.

[BunnySlippers]

Who owns Reuters?

Publicly traded. Symbol "RTRSY" over the counter last I checked (which was about 8 years ago).

[Mr. Mulliner]

It means some terrorists are luckier than others.

[Mr. Mulliner]

Excellent response, Yehuda!