From the “Watts Angered by Reuters' Refusal to Use 'Terrorist' Label” piece:

"Nonetheless," the letter continued, "in an internal memo reminding our journalists of our policy in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, a statement was made that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This wording caused deep offense among members of our staff, our readers and the public at large, many of whom felt this meant Reuters was somehow making a value judgment concerning the attacks.



"This was never our intention, nor is it our policy. Our policy is to avoid the use of emotional terms and not make value judgments concerning the facts we attempt to report accurately and fairly. We apologize for the insensitive manner in which we characterized this policy and we extend our sympathy to all those who have been affected by these tragic events," the letter concluded.





I’m probably very late on this bit of tripe, but doesn’t the argument that “one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter” an “emotional” rebut, as well as a so-called “value judgments concerning the facts”?

Also, why should saying “We apologize for the insensitive manner in which we characterized this policy and we extend our sympathy to all those who have been affected by these tragic events” be considered an apology? Is the use of the word “apologize” enough, considering nothing has changed regarding the use of the evil term “terrorist”?

PC words and pure crockdom.

Reporters on the lower rungs of that ignoble news ladder, however, are actually intelligent people, just trying to make a living -- but they appear so ignorant of the path they willingly follow. It’s when they rise above the public in stature (on the air daily, Armani suits, nationally aired opinions about anything they are not an authority on) that they become idiots. And do not confuse your local news anchors with anything dealing with journalism. These are nothing more than hired mouthpieces. Their only talents are that they look good on camera and can generally read what’s placed in front of them. They have absolutely NO news sense whatsoever.

News CEOs? Well, I suppose it would stand to reason that those above the more famous, or infamous, nationally acclaimed reporters would simply have to be complete morons.

Dan (still watching the news, particularly in the winter -- the high blood pressure keeps me warm)