Maariv International: Reuters terminology laundry
Recently, as a result of a spat with the CanWest media group, Reuter’s dirty little secret finally came out, they never call use the “T-word” when reporting terror attacks, preferring terms like militants or activists.
This was admitted by two senior Reuters officials. In an interview with the New York Times, they admitted never labeling any action, no matter how reprehensible as terrorism, and never refer to the perpetrators as terrorists. “Terror is an emotive term, and we as impartial journalists cannot use such terminology. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.
This statement suffers from two basic defects. The first, and less important has to do with form, it is a tired and well-worn cliché, long bereft of any originality it once had.
The second, and much more important defect is that it is fallacious. A terrorist is someone who perpetrates terrorism, plain and simple, no ifs, ands or buts. Define terrorism and one can define a terrorist.
. . . . . .
Some attacks caused collateral civilian casualties, but what war doesn’t. In every war, whether conventional or not, mistakes happen and wrong targets get hit. This does not make those responsible terrorists. The red line separating terrorism from legitimate warfare is the intent and strategy, when one side adopts a deliberate strategy of targeting civilians, then they become terrorists.
Islamic and Middle East terrorism passes every test for being defined as terrorism, and its perpetrators as terrorists. They deliberately and systematically target civilians. We are not talking about civilians working in economically strategic targets. Busses, schools, airplanes and restaurants are not factories or power plants. These targets are not attacked because of their economic or strategic value, but simply because they are places where there are lots of civilians, making them target rich environments, enabling the terrorist the most bangs for his buck.
white pebble 