Zerbisias knocks HR, redefines ‘objectivity’
September 23, 2004 16:14 by ManagingTeam
In her column today, Toronto Star’s Antonia Zerbisias questions our recent report publicizing Reuters’ admission that its editors regulate the language of news reports to safeguard reporters in Arab areas.
Remarkably, Zerbisias experiences no cognitive dissonance between a) believing Reuters provides ‘straightforward objective reporting,’ and b) Reuters’ active regulating of language to appease volitile bad guys. How could a news outlet be ‘objective’ if it’s afraid of what one side of the conflict will do to its reporters if it uses the ‘wrong’ word?
How objective is a referee who fears calling a foul against one team, lest they beat him up after the game?
Zerbisias completely sidesteps this, the central issue in our critique. Instead, Zerbisias asks why we didn’t question CanWest’s altering of Reuters copy. The answer should be obvious — CanWest’s decision is based solely on its editors’ judgement of what constitutes accurate, independent news reporting. This, as opposed to Reuters, whose own ‘Trust Principles’ stipulate that
the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Reuters must be upheld at all times.
Reuters violates this principle — undermining its readers’ trust in its ‘independence’ — when it allows threats from Islamic thugs to influence word choice in ostensibly ‘neutral’ news reports.
The use/non-use of the ‘T-word’ in news reporting is a debatable matter. But for a major news outlet to claim to readers it is ‘independent’ and ‘unbiased’, while admitting it regulates word choice in response to threats, is hypocritical and irresponsible.
Comments to Ms. Zerbisias: azerbis@thestar.ca
The Spitblogger
5:04 pm
Sep 23, 2004
I think that she is just trying to hitch her site meter to this topic, by attacking you. She just wants to insert herself for personal gain. Kind of like a digital whore.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
BRUTUS
2:36 pm
Sep 24, 2004
Ah, and she calls her article “Opinion eclipsing the news”. How ironic.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Debbie G
4:06 pm
Sep 24, 2004
Ms Zerbisias felt compelled to defend a media giant whose reporting has fallen under the same umbrella of suspicion as CBS news…Unreliable and biased.
I’ve ceased getting my news from CBS and CNN, I am adding Reuters to the list. No longer will I bother to read their writers’ reports. Too many other options out there.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Debbie G
4:07 pm
Sep 24, 2004
Ms Zerbisias felt compelled to defend a media giant whose reporting has fallen under the same umbrella of suspicion as CBS news…Unreliable and biased.
I’ve ceased getting my news from CBS and CNN, I am adding Reuters to the list. No longer will I bother to read their writers’ reports. Too many other options out there.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Anonymous
4:26 pm
Sep 24, 2004
“The answer should be obvious — CanWest’s decision is based solely on its editors’ judgement of what constitutes accurate, independent news reporting.” How did we decide this? CanWests’ editors like to banner headline slights against Jews/Israel while burying in small print in the back pages, if mentioned at all, excesses by the same people. This is well understood by the general public, if considered a bit of a joke, but accepted as legitimate expression of opinion to which they are entitled. Objectivity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
The Spitblogger
7:01 pm
Sep 24, 2004
Moron.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
anon
1:23 am
Sep 25, 2004
If you don’t want to read other points of view you are left with nothing to consider. If you want to control what others read you are Big Brother. Why do you think censorship would be an acceptable idea to hearts and minds outside Israel ?
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
The Spitblogger
5:56 am
Sep 25, 2004
You mean like blowing up jews on busses, and blowing up jews in cafes, and blowing up jews in hotels, and blowing up jews in thier homes, and blowing up jews anywhere they can? That kind of “slight”? You are a moron.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
anon
6:49 pm
Sep 25, 2004
I am a moron, I don’t believe censorship is really possible or that it would endear others to your cause in any event. Please tell me why you think it is a good idea.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Glenn
4:12 am
Sep 26, 2004
I as well have dumped CBS and CNN and now I’ll dump Reuters.
Call them for what they are TERRORIST, they are nothing more that cold blooded killers in which I have no sympathy for them or there sympathizers or there cause.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
j a
1:07 am
Sep 27, 2004
Fact of the matter is the ‘plurality’ of media outlets is not all that it should be. Many outlets exist yet almost exclusively portray one view, that Israel is evil and Terrorists are excused from acting with any level of human decency when they strike against Israel and its citizens. I don’t feel that I am in a position to shut off my CNN, BBC, Reuters or any other horrificly bias service. Instead I can only watch it, take it with a pinch of salt and then use the bits of information (or should I say misinformation) I have gleaned in order to find out what really happened on the internet. Sad, but true.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
anon
6:15 pm
Sep 28, 2004
Well j a if everybody says you’re wrong . . . maybe you are.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
anon
6:32 pm
Sep 28, 2004
By the way Spitblogger, there may be children accessing this site (although I hope not). Your original posting which refers to “trying to hitch her site”. . “to insert herself”. . “like a digital whore”, while fulfilling your fantasy, is perhaps not the sort of thing we should expect here. Makes me wonder what other sites you like to visit.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
senior-older-gay-2718
10:43 pm
Mar 04, 2005
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0