Reuters 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: [email protected]
