. . . here's a quick review:
We write in response to the confusion surrounding the use of the word "terrorist" in Reuters news stories.
We lost six members of the Reuters family and offices that housed 550 others who thankfully survived. From the first moments after the attacks, Reuters staff around the world worked tirelessly to account for their colleagues, restore our information services to customers, and report the news.
However, these efforts have been overshadowed by the controversy over the policy of our Editorial group to avoid using emotional terms such as "terrorist" in their news stories. This policy has served Reuters and, more importantly, our readers well by ensuring access to news as it occurs, wherever it occurs. As a global news organization reporting from 160 countries, Reuters mission is to provide accurate and impartial accounts of events so that individuals, organizations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts.
Nonetheless, 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.
Tom Glocer
Chief Executive Officer
Reuters Group PLC
Geert Linnebank
Editor-in-Chief
Reuters Group PLC
2 October 2001
Source: homepage.mac.com
There are other sources out there.
And if you had read my post with "crystal clarity", you might have realized my response was in regards to what Tom had typed, not me -- which was merely to post the story. And as for my personal camp, I'm naturally lazy, so I sit where it's most comfortable. Your side. Tom's side. Whichever is right at the time.
Dan
Current Events » in reply to I understood your story with crystal clarity
re: The source avoids the issue, but . . .
The whole thread (35 posts)
- Lead UN Envoy Killed in Blast . . .
- re: Lead UN Envoy Killed in Blast . . .
- Can you clarify?
- re: Yeah -- they just misspelled U.S. when they hit the U.N. . .
- I sincerrly doubt that their goal is to evict the US from Iraq
- re: Can you clarify?
- Can you clarify?
- re: Lead UN Envoy Killed in Blast . . .
