Reuters finds ‘terror’ in Israel
September 5, 2005 16:35 by BackSpin EditorReuters has a very strict policy to avoid unattributed use of the term ‘terrorism’ in coverage of the Mideast conflict. Unless, that is, we’re talking Jewish terror:
Sharon orders terror aid for Arabs targeted by Jews
Compare this to another Reuters dispatch from today, which includes this line:
Government lawyers argued the 25 houses of worship should be razed to prevent possible desecration by Palestinian militants.
The lawyers certainly didn’t use the term ‘militants’ in their argument, but rather ‘terrorists’ (michablim) — the same term used by Sharon.
So why does Reuters apply this double standard in translation?
Comments to Reuters: editor@reuters.com
Brad Brzezinski
3:26 am
Sep 06, 2005
Much as I detest the way Reuters handles Middle East (and other) reporting, I do not see this as being a good example of their bias.
The use of the word “terror” in the news article relates to Israeli law and quoting Sharon.
When describing Israeli terrorism themselves, they have used the Reuterish term “militant.”
There is plenty of better ammunition to use against Reuters. If they receive complaints about an item like this, it will be too easily dismissed and may also cause more valid complaints to be taken lightly.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0