Well, I'm sure its just a few extemists that make them feel that way.

Didn't CNN admit to doing the same thing in Iraq?

Is Dan Rather a terrorist?

Nauseated now.

Charles, are you suggesting that Reuters should use words which antagonize the terrorists and thus subject their reporters to death from said terrorists? Viewed in this light, the actions of Reuters management is perfectly understandable and justified. Taking management actions which result in the death of your employees is not something they encourage in Business School classes.

Their alternative to this appeasement would be to withdraw all of their reporters from the Middle East. And then they can't report ANY news, much less news which calls terrorists "militants."

It's a difficult situation for "Al-Reuters," which you and other LGF'ers easily gloss over in your condemnations.

Good for CanWest. Even without Izzy Asper they are doing something right. Kudos!

OT but did anyone see parts of the ceremony honoring Pat Tillman Sunday at the Cardinals' home opener? It was very touching, I thought. I'll see if I can find any photos online. . . .

This explains Dan Rather's "how's the weather in Iraq?" interview with Saddam Hussein also. If you can't cover events with even a shred of objectivity, YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PROPAGANDA OUTLET FOR THE MURDERERS! [/rant]

Oh, how I hate AP, Reuters, CNN, NYT, etc. May they be the first to die. They actually deserve it. Their biased coverage of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib have recruited more terrorists than anything else.

To protect his reporters he needs to appease the terrorists. How else can reuters scum get the action photographs of terrorists cuddling their RPG's and AK47s. Lets no forget the full action shots of terrorist murders running in the street and emptying their AK47 while holding the gun at hip level like a moron. What would the world do without these wonderful photographs of these intolerent murders.

Well I just stopped picking up The National Post on a daily basis (Saturdays only now) because it is a pale immitation of its former self.

Good to see that there's still some fight in the old girl.

Give Reuters an iota of credit for their (somewhat delayed) frankness in admitting that they modify their language to appease Islamic terrorists. How many other agencies do precisely the same thing, and won't admit it?

People still buy newspapers?

#6 Gordon

Fuck off and die. Thank you. Please, kill yourself. Please. If Darwin's theories hold any water, you are not long for this Earth.

You are arguing for propaganda which gets people killed, you worthless piece of shit.

Nodrog,

It would be better that they had their reporters report from more remote, secure locations (read, not embedded with the terrorists), than thaty they obscure the TRUTH.

OT: [Link: www.democrats.org...]

Sep 21, 2004

McAuliffe: Will GOP Answer If They Know Whether Stone, Others Had Involvement With CBS Documents?
Washington, D.C. - In response to false Republican accusations regarding the CBS documents, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued this statement:

“In today’s New York Post, Roger Stone, who became associated with political ‘dirty tricks’ while working for Nixon, refused to deny that he was the source the CBS documents.

“Will Ed Gillespie or the White House admit today what they know about Mr. Stone’s relationship with these forged documents? Will they unequivocally rule out Mr. Stone’s involvement? Or for that matter, others with a known history of dirty tricks, such as Karl Rove or Ralph Reed?”

Jose Aznar, ex prez of Spain, just gave a talk at my university....

One of the first things he mentioned was that the Madrid bombings were planned in the fall of 2001, and thus had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR IN IRAQ. well, of course, the socialists now have the power, safe forever from the spectre of fascism. Hmm.

I'm sure that went in one ear and out the other of most audience members.

He was very supportive of Bush in his talk, much to the dismay of the throng of shrill liberal students in his midst.

He also warned of a similar election plot here in the US, which of course we are all aware exists.

Well he took questions at the end and I got up there and asked him that if the terrorists were planning to influence American elections in November, in whose favor are they trying to influence them?

Some people laughted, either out of complicit agreement or because they are spineless lefty automatons.

He of course could not say what he was thinking and instead gave an ambiguous response.

The rest of the questions were the usual echoing of "cycles of violence," "the dangers of of fighting fire with fire" and all the other tired bromides.

Aznar was a real sight to see though. Very good speech. Of course, the lefties probably all saw it as neo-con rhetoric. Nevermind all the terrorist attempts at the ex pres and the people around him.

And by the way, I was the ONLY question asker to thank him for his support of the United States.

[Are] you suggesting that Reuters should use words which antagonize the terrorists and thus subject their reporters to death from said terrorists?

Yes.

#8 Do you live in AZ?

I ask because you may find some photos in the Tribune.

Terrorist is not an 'emotive word'. It is a technical term from 4th generation warfare. Beyond sheer intimidation, this is yet another attempt to deny that this is a War.

'He who controls the language rules the world.'

The U.N. has the moral equivalence of Kofi Annan

LGF has the moral imbecility of Gordon.

Is there anyone out there that is surprised by this "admission"?

I am not.

You can't call terrorists terrorists, they may terrorize you. Its much easier (and safer) to call Israel and the United States terrorists.

we don’t use emotive words

so now instead of murdered we will describe the event thusly: treated in such a way as to prevent the continuation of life

instead of beheaded we will describe the event as cranially partitioned

instead of Muslim we will...well, there is no nonemotive way to describe them.

Charles, are you suggesting that Reuters should use words which antagonize the terrorists and thus subject their reporters to death from said terrorists? Viewed in this light, the actions of Reuters management is perfectly understandable and justified. Taking management actions which result in the death of your employees is not something they encourage in Business School classes.

So, in your opinion Gordon, a news organization should misrepresent the news to shield its reporters at the expense of its readers?

If they're NOT willing to report the truth in the interests of "safety", then they should just report nothing at all. It would certainly be more honest.

Terrorist

terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Militant

Fighting or warring.

They don't "fight" or "war" nodroG. You are nothing but a waste of skin. Reuters is nothing but an ADMITTED propaganda outlet for the TERRORISTS.

#6 gordon

Their alternative to this appeasement would be to withdraw all of their reporters from the Middle East. And then they can't report ANY news, much less news which calls terrorists "militants."

I knew that you would come around! That's the best idea that you have had yet to reduce the power that the islamists want!
Good on you!
You have finally shed your moral equivalency ideals.
(BTW, Israel is in the Middle East and is civilized. Reuters can report stories from there.)

Gordon:

Fuck you, you terrorist-enabling piece of shit. For you to think for even a MINUTE that *professional* journalists should water down and outright LIE about what they report, all in the name of appeasing terrorists shows that you have mind-numbing lack of honesty, integrity, and understanding of world events. Your line of thinking leads to the failure on a GRAND SCALE of others to make rational connections between "cause" and "effect", which in turn leads to further deaths on a GRAND SCALE.

You are scum and nothing less.

#17 stillangry

Jose Aznar, ex prez of Spain, just gave a talk at my university....

One of the first things he mentioned was that the Madrid bombings were planned in the fall of 2001, and thus had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR IN IRAQ.

Is he still insisting that it was ETA?

By refusing to call terrorists terrorists, Reuters is not so much protecting it's journalists as protecting it's access to the terrorists. I see their motivation as the *scoop* on all other news services.
If they were genuinely worried about their personnel, they wouldn't send them out to report the terrorist eye view in the first place.

What's in a name? Truth.

#6 Gordon

You don't get it Mr. Rather Gordon. If you report the news then report the news. If you are a mouthpiece for the Jihadi then you work for them. Do you see no problem with lying when your sole purpose for existence is to inform with the truth?
How about this:
Somewhere, wherever it is that you live, some nutcase wants to kill you for the crap you post here (Not me, really!). You want to change your whole posting style to protect yourself or do you tell the "Gordo truth"? Careful now....

Charles, are you suggesting that Reuters should use words which antagonize the terrorists and thus subject their reporters to death from said terrorists?

That's what reporting does!!!

It pisses some people off! To pander to a group so as not to get them angry distorts the news (as can be seen by the refusal of news outlets to describe hamas, hezbollah and al aqsa as "terrorist" groups -- they are!)

News needs to be reported factually. To do otherwise is not news -- it is espousing a point of view, and is therefore opinion.

#14 Beagle: And you are arguing for "truth in reporting" which gets your reporters killed.

Remind me not to ever let you be my boss.

Reporters should cover their stories from the western perspective. If the terrorists want a news organization they can buy cam corders and use the web to show their murders..oh they do now.. so what does the MSM gain by this? liberal mush heads like Al gore.. J.FingKerry and the entire European union and confused americans who vote for them. the good CBS reporters died in WW2 we got the cowards.

David A. Schlesinger, Reuters’ global managing editor ... said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to “confusion” about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations.

Wow.

Can a journalist who does not practice journalism, still be called a "journalist"?

They're just like CNN, who failed to report on Saddam's atrocities for a decade, as thousands died:

The awful news CNN had to keep to itself
By Eason Jordan (chief news executive at CNN)
[Link: www.iht.com...]
 

#6 Gordon

Oh, yes, good poing. And the journalists in WWII should NEVER have referred to Hitler as a dictator. It would only have antagonized him. Oh, and next time a killer is on the loose, the bulletin should refer to him as a disadvantaged youth full of righteous anger. Maybe then he won't kill anyone he takes hostage.

// Do I really need a sarcasm tag?

Why is it that more and more often I find myself typing "JUST GROW UP" to people of NoDroG's persuasion? is it because they think the adult world functions by Kindergarten rules and if they make nice people will be nice to them?

GROW UP! PLEASE. You and your coreligionaries MUST grow up before western civilization is lost. I understand other civilizations have been destroyed and long dark ages followed, but dagnabit, I LIKE this one and I have kids. If you and others like you allow and encourage the Islamofascists to have any power over the life of my kids and grandkids, the Islamofascists won't be alone in the escort I take to hell with me.

Gee, this smells suspiciously like CNN's admission that they withheld unflattering stories about Iraq before the war, in order to keep a presence there.

al-Reuters moves into line behind Rather.

Hey, whatever happened to that glib, proudly reiterated cliche about journalists "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable"?

Does Reuters REALLY think the beast will eat them last?

#6 Gordon

Your argument is sound except that you fail to analyze the consequences of al-Reuters calling the terrorists "militants". Instead of their reporters facing danger "only" the Jews are killed. Is that what you call "good management"?

Just subscribed to the National Post the CanWest paper.

Imagine the despatches from war-torn Europe if there had been a similar policy in place during WWII:

"U.S. occupation forces today surrounded and threatened to destroy an emplacement of German military units [not: Nazis] who have takin up positions inside a local church. Meanwhile, militant supporters of German leader Adolf Hitler converged on the streets of Berlin, promising to give their lives to hinder the entrance of U.S. and Allied occupation forces into their homeland. German spiritual leaders, including several in wheelchairs, joined the demonstrations."

Cato to al-Reuters: Appeasement won't save you. Bend over and get ready to pay the jizya.

Oh, that last line sounds disgusting...

#35

Gordon  9/21/2004 02:25PM PST

 #14 Beagle: And you are arguing for "truth in reporting" which gets your reporters killed.
Remind me not to ever let you be my boss.

Don't tell me you are a reporter?

#8 logger phd:

I watched the whole thing and was very moved. As I was at my neighbours and he had hs nephews over I took the opportunity to get them to watch it and learn a little something about heroism and sacrifice. I'll check, as I'm pretty sure NFL.com has some pics.

Cato #42

LOL and ew!

#43 Daybrother

This would surprise you, considering Nodrog's "thinking"?

Yay, CanWest!

Gordon:

You go ahead and get a list of the beheaded (List A). Check it against a list of the people who have used the word "terrorist" in a public utterance (List B).

Are you telling us that the people on List A who appear also on List B deserved to have their heads severed? And what about those people on List A who are not also on List B? What, Gordon, what.

They're dead, too, Gordon. They were killed by terrorists.

#43 Daybrother,

Would it be surprising, given the foolishness that exudes from his fingers?

#45 Portia

No, it is just that I suddenly feel so...unclean.....

#35 Advocate of murder, nodroG

#14 Beagle: And you are arguing for "truth in reporting" which gets your reporters killed.

Remind me not to ever let you be my boss.

After doing some military presses to keep myself from climbing through the monitor and killing you a la Freddie Kruger...

If Reuters thinks the TERRORISTS are militants, why don't they mention the FACT that every strategy they use is a WAR CRIME? You fucking moron.

I'll tell you why. They are cowards, in league with the TERRORISTS. They report Abu Ghraib as if it's the worst thing which ever happened. WHY, you imbecile? Answer: they only use their editorial anger on free nations.

Please, jump off the nearest bridge.

Not all insurgents/militants/guerillas are terrorists. Terrorists specifically target civilians. I don't (and international law doesn't) consider attacks against military targets (including soldiers of an occupying army) to be terrorism.

Well, the torrent of abuse at me has started again.

If I were a Reuters executive, I think I would actually decide to pull my reporters rather than skew the news. I know I wouldn't leave my reporters in there and refuse to skew the news, because they would start being killed. But no news is better than skewed news, when it comes right down to it. Perhaps Reuters can contract with al-Jazeera, get the basic info, and then re-write the copy to reflect the truth.

My point is that I don't think Charles or many LGF'ers have really thought the dilemma of Reuters (and other world-wide news organizations) through. Here are their three choices:

1. Report the truth and get their reporters killed.
2. Do what they are doing now, censoring themselves to get at the stories.
3. Report the truth and pull their reporters from the Middle East (except for Israel, as someone pointed out in an earlier post).

Cant stand up to the school yard bully, eh?

Figures. Everyone is a coward nowdays.

This will be short, I have to go to work.

Gordon, so by your standards, it should be reported to me that "there is a package over there which may contain a material that has the capability of producing a bright flash and rapidly expanding gases"?

Or should I just be told, "hey, there's a bomb over there"?

People with dangerous jobs shouldn't be there if they are a big a wimp as you are.

Idiot.

All......1........2..........3

GAZE

Not Off-topic (though it might seem so):

Kofi is doing the very same jig that al Reuters is doing: the appeasement polka. The United States of America carries a single measly vote when it comes to electing the 'big cheese' of the United Nations. Peppercorns the size of Kuwait, Lichtenstein and so on, have the same pull. Kofi is there 'cuz a zillion unhappy Islamics are barely holding a majority to keep him in the lead. Better yet, he's from that oh-so-sad South Africa, where blacks were apartheid for centuries, the very flowerchild of how world mass-politic can change a sovereign country. [I'm not sayin' it was right, K? It just puts a kind of 'implied moral authority' on Kofi that from any other country wouldn't exist.]

The United Nations itself is a quivvering mass of indecision. It exists to keep the finer french bakeries and multicultural non-governmental organizations in the chips, grants here, projects there, lovely tea-table reports and cheery grubby faces worldwide to show.

I really can't even get up a mild bout of loathing for Kori Annan. He's the self-important puppet that can tweak America's nose, and the Arab electorate is expecting him to do so at all turns. How else would this fellow, who from all external evidence shows no ability to say anything really new about sovereign interdepedence, how else could he stay in power for as long as he has?

Kofi isn't a turd, doesn't need to be eliminated, shouldn't necessarily be removed, just because he reflects the greater world opinion of what is just, what is right. It is most certainly the height of folly to posit that the humiliation of a couple of dozen prisoners nearly but not quite warrants the beheading of truely innocent aid-givers.

PS: I was thinking again about al Reuters and their insistence on not using the "terrorist" word. Well then, what we must do is require equal-and-opposite form in the terms of the victims. Victims must be described in the most favorable light. A truck driver, a gaffer, an electronics/communications specialist, a nurse, a doctor, a munitions demolition expert ... are all aid givers. We might want to coin as many euphemisms for the aid-givers as we can: then email al Reuters mercilessly when they fail to use "sensitive enough" terms and bons pas to describe the murders and axings.

I've posted the above to the beheadings thread as well.

GoatGuy

I wonder why Israeli journalists call terrorists "activists" and the murders of hostages in Iraq "executions"? They are not intimidated by anyone.

In Israel nobody is bothered by the term "activist", the public regards the term "Hamas activist" synonymous with "Hamas terrorist", no distinction whatsoever. If the media doesn't distort your perception it distorts your language.

Holocaust expert, Professor Norman Geras has a great post on this very subject at his blog:

The T word (by Eve Garrard)

Various people (Norman Geras, Mick Hartley, Biased-BBC) have been complaining about the reluctance of some parts of the media to use the word 'terrorist' to describe, for example, suicide bombers. Different reasons can be offered for this reluctance, but one of the more interesting ones is the claim that the word 'terrorist' involves some negative moral judgement (and so it should be avoided by the news media). Now straight off, we should acknowledge that the claim is true: the word does indeed have that negative connotation. How could it fail to? Terrorists are people who deliberately and intentionally set out to kill innocent civilians, including (and in the case of Beslan and Maalot prioritising) children, whose innocence is exceptionally difficult to deny. Since that seems a particularly vile thing to do, it's no surprise that the name for it has acquired negative moral connotations. (Whether these connotations are now actually part of the meaning of the term is a nice question in philosophy of language and/or moral theory which I won't pursue here, since once we go down that road we won't come back up it for months.) But the really interesting question that it raises is this: what is supposed to follow from that truth about the moral loading of the word 'terrorist'? Why does it imply that we shouldn't use the word in news coverage?

For the remainder of the piece:

[Link: normblog.typepad.com...]

We shouldn't call them "Reuters journalists", we should call them heroes.

/sarcasm off

#38 Portia: The reporters who weren't stationed in Germany could call Hitler anything they wanted.

The reporters who were stationed in Germany were heavily censored, and would have undoubtedly been killed if they tried to report the truth. The point is moot because no nations at war with Germany had reporters there anyway - I'm sure they were all expelled or interned as soon as war was declared. It wasn't a choice they had.

That leads us to the question as to whether we really need the level of reporting of events in Iraq provided by Reuters and other world-wide news organizations. Perhaps not.

The MSM continues fuming up infospace with its petilential feculence as it has for the last 40 years. Al-Reuters is just a flaming example of it.

Only when the '60s generation finally dies off will we be rid of collectivism's anchor.

Is Gordon Back? Crap...

Aren't people that will kidnap and kill your reporters because you call them terrorists sort of, uhm, terrorists?

Anyone that doesn't agree with that logic pipe up. Lemme know how screwed up my thinking is.

Does anyone have the CanWest contact info? I'd like to send them a thank you message for having the chutzpah to tell the truth.

#51 Gordon -- "Well, the torrent of abuse at me has started again."

With one editorial change, I could support your first sentence" "Well, the torrent of WELL-DESERVED abuse at me has started again."

Gordo, what is the point of getting the "story" if you are forced, by reason of fear of retribution, to report dishonestly? Some news organizations used to be know to uphold their credibility by leaving situations where they were not permitted to report honestly or denied access to facts or controlled in what they could ask. The departure was a statement.

#51 gordon

3. Report the truth and pull their reporters

Yes, you have come along! You got it.
No mouthpiece for those who are not willing to live in a tolerant, accepting world.
Face it, gordo. There is evil in the world, and it can not be given credence.

No, I'm not a journalist.

# 22 Paul:

LGF has the moral imbecility of Gordon.

WTF does that mean???

Gordon,

One can only wonder how Reuters' understandable regard for the safety of its reporters has affected its overall coverage of the Mid East. If they're unwilling to use the "T" word, what other words might they unwilling to use and what else have they have they not reported for fear of offending the "militants"? In what other ways have they compromised their "editorial integrity" to protect their reporters' safety?

Under the circumstances, why should we believe anything they report?

51 Gordon

Your analysis is again sound. Option 3 is the only acceptable one in our civilization.

So, Gordon, the reporters who were stationed in Germany... were they reporting on the Holocaust, or where their connections to the regime too important? And did their newspapers back in their home countries give a dang what they said in the original reports or did they "translate" to truthful language. I grant you, I wasn't alive in WWII, but none of the materials I've read from that time seemed to bow to Berlin.

Everyone else -- if Gordon is a reporter and gets kidnapped ... it puts us in a quandry. Do we wish for his safe release or not? (And does he really believe that not calling them "terrorists" will save him? I can just see this "Please Mr. Activist. Don't murder me in the name of your Righteous Cause...")

More exciting news from Eurabia.

Italy's futile attempt at muslim censure

The rapid islamization of Europe
By Robert Spencer

[Link: www.worldnetdaily.com...]

Frontpage interview with Bat Ye'or,Eurabia by Jamie Glazov

[Link: www.frontpagemag.com...]

#22 Paul -- "The U.N. has the moral equivalence of Kofi Annan

LGF has the moral imbecility of Gordon."

and Paul? Well Paul has some issues.

RickZ, #66

Sorry, that wasn't well written. I meant that Gordon was our own resident moral imbecile.

Funny he didn't mention news...

I agree they need to,

protect our(their) reporters

he also states the need to protect,

our(their) editorial integrity

There's the problem. Editorial is defined as:

Main Entry: editorial Pronunciation
Guide
Function: noun
Date: 1830
: a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article

#25 PlanetDan

so now instead of murdered we will describe the event thusly: treated in such a way as to prevent the continuation of life

instead of beheaded we will describe the event as cranially partitioned

You should immediately begin work on a dictionary. Perhaps you could use your expertise to bridge the communication gap between the 'World of the Moonbat' and 'Reality'. ;)

Once upon a time journalists were respected, brave, honorable. Now they are not much better than the terrorists they appease.

Kudos to the National Post and CanWest. The first sensible thing from Canadia I've heard in a long, long time. We should send them emails thanking them for their bravery.

Can you imagine if the local paper was afraid to do a story on something like the mayor's brother getting a no-bid city contract and openly stated their reason for not reporting it as a crime was because they were afraid of violence from the brother or afraid of not getting any more interviews from him?

And everyone thought this was okay and reasonable?

And #20 Jia, you are so right. It is not an emotive term. They aren't calling them scum, lowlifes, garbage or any other type of insults.

Terrorist is a specific word with a specific meaning. Most simply, one whose goal it is to cause fear or terror in one's enemy.

If it strikes a emotional chord with most people, so what? So do serial killer and rape but they are no less valid terms.

#51 Gordon

4. Report the truth from a safe distance. You know, the al-Rasheed Hotel, the Green Zone, guarded housing, etc. Quit using stringers named Mohammed Jihad Mohammed and Sharia Shaheed Mohammed.

You deserve the abuse. Reuters and the rest of the media are the most powerful weapon the terrorists have. They save their indignation for America and our allies. They RECRUIT terrorists, you complete and utter $#)!@(^&)$@#.

The overall bias in the coverage is so obvious even a nodroG should be able to see it. Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are the main recruiting tools of the jihadists now. Thanks, Reuters, AP, NYT, etcetera, etcetera!

That's it, GAZE.

#17 stillangry:

Jose Aznar, ex prez of Spain, just gave a talk at my university....

I got the e-mail invite for this event; clicked on it within, I dunno, half an hour of the time it was sent, and got a message saying the event was booked up. So YOU'RE the one who got MY invite!!!

LATE BREAKING NEWS FROM ASSOCIATED GORDON PRESS:

Perfectly legitimate New York businessman Vito Corleone faces yet another round of persecution from the US Attorney's office, based on allegations regarding his totally 100% legitimate olive oil-importing business. It is widely believed that the government's ongoing persecution of Mr. Corleone is based entirely upon discriminatory motives arising from his Sicilian heritage. In addition to being a successful (and 100% completely legitimate) businessman, Mr. Corleone is a noted patron of the arts, and benefactor of his local community. This reporter is glad to write stories about Mr. Corleone's utterly, totally legitimate business out of my deep admiration for this man, and not, as some have maliciously claimed, because of that horsehead that wound up in my bed one morning due to a completely legitimate equestrian accident.

# 73 Paul:

Okay. Biiiiiig difference.

Reuters should call them what they are:

Not "militants."

Not "terrorists."

"Fookin' terrorist savages."

/holding my breath

#1 song_and_dance_man 9/21/2004 02:07PM PST

They think it shows integrity to not call evil by it's name

Not quite. It's just the usual embarassment of people who find a rightious sounding excuse whenever they do something cowardly or selfish and corrupt. They make excuses because a corporation can't make their slogan "we tell cowardly lies and pass the savings on to you"

#6 Gordon 9/21/2004 02:14PM PST

Charles, are you suggesting that Reuters should use words which antagonize the terrorists and thus subject their reporters to death from said terrorists? Viewed in this light, the actions of Reuters management is perfectly understandable and justified.

And to think I've been starting to feel sorry for you for the constant abuse you take here, Gordon.

But you've really justified your role as LGF's bitch.

So newspapers should take no risks, allow themselves to intimidated into a yellow press whenever they report in an unfree part of the world and serve as the mouthpiece for every thug in world who can afford the threaten a reporter. In your view the world should be missinformed, and therefore all of the policies of democratic states compromised...

Everything for safety of reporters who reduce themselves to mouthpieces and nothing for democracy, freedom, truth or anything else that threatens the rule or ambitions of despotic thugs.

So much for all liberal ideals Gordy.

You're the perfect dihimi, Gordon

Thus Reuters has been compromised by the terrorists and tailors its reporting to suit their desires so that they can stay in the business of making money conveying information (whether it is correct or not).

And because one of the goals of the terrorists is to use the media to weaken support for Israel and the United States to facilitate the destruction of those countries and spread Islam throughout the world, it logically follows that:

Reuters is a propaganda arm of terrorists and Islamists, and thus an enemy of Israel, the United States and the non-Muslim world.

The same can be said of many other media organizations who have allowed themselves to be compromised for the sake of their business interests. CNN has already admitted to having been compromised by Saddam Hussein in order to maintain a Baghdad bureau.

#51 Gordon

Like everyone else I'll have to go with 3. Not only because of the immorality of the other options, but mainly because it's the closest to the journalistic main function which is to report the truth.

It's better for the public if reporters say they can't report the news from certain areas because they are threatened than to pretend nothing bad is happening there. They better say that the Iranian regime is so bad that if they report what the mullahs are really doing to the people they will not be able to report news from Iran ever again - it's better than "reporting" that the Iranian regime is moderate and almost democratic, which is simply TO LIE.

#78 Beagle

That's it, GAZE.

I have the weights out, myself!
I asked gordon once if he feels that islam is a viable, valid culture that has contributed positively to the world.
He said yes.

#20 Jia Onuo and #27Beagle

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon)

Exactly. Somehow, "terrorist" has become some sort of general smear-word. I would guess mostly because the moral equivalence crowd and the terrorist appeasers and the terrorists themselves use the word against other people. "Bush is the terrorist. The U.S. is the terrorist. Waaah!" Even Sea Shepherd supporters, you know those who used to sink and ram ships, but now provide a ship to a South-American government, use the word "terrorist" to describe the fishing and hunting that they want to stop. WTF? L3 indeed.
And people use words without looking them up, thus confusing the language. By controlling the language, you start controlling how people think. (I really have to read Orwell's "1984" soon.)

I've been railing against terrorists/violent activists for years (white supremacy groups, animal rights activists, nationalist groups, whatever), but after 9/11 terrorism suddenly was a word that is in common usage. Common wrong usage.

Persons includes activists. Activists includes millitants (you know, those people who attack Israeli soldiers. Right or wrong, I'll accept that that is an act of war. Think resistance movements, and many Europeans' image of Arafish). Then there's terrorists and war criminals. That's the splodydopes that intentionally target civilians, children and other innocents. Hamas, Jihad, al Qaida, al Hilltop brigades.

#85 Ann

I asked gordon once if he feels that islam is a viable, valid culture that has contributed positively to the world.
He said yes.

You should have told us before.

Gordon,

I apologize. It is clear you have SEVERE mental problems and one should not make fun of the handicapped. And it certainly is no use trying to argue rationally with someone so deeply impaired.

So from now on I will ignore you. Want some pretty blunt scissors, so you can cut your pretty colored paper in the corner while the adults discuss boring adult stuff?

[Schlesinger repeated this statement in a recent radio interview with CBC, when he described the ‘serious consequences’ if certain ‘people in the Mideast’ were to believe Reuters called such men ‘terrorists.’]

This is a stunning admission—Reuters’ top international editor openly acknowledges that one of the main reasons his agency refuses to call terrorists ‘terrorists’ has nothing to do with editorial pursuit of objectivity, but rather is a response to intimidation from thugs and their supporters.

Not stunned. Reuters picked its side on the war on terrorism a long time ago.

The 'serious consequences' involve losing front row seats to cover terrorists, up close. They are spineless reporters, reporting spineless terrorists.

Oooo. I said the 'T' word.
Terrorist. Terrorist. Terrorist.

Huh. I guess I have more balls than Reuters. Terrorist enabler scum.

Completely OT:

Does anyone have any more info than was on Drudge about the soldier who was attacked outside a Toby Keith concert and got his nose broken?

Of all places - that's like going to a bible thumpin', holy roller church and getting beat up for wearing a WWJD shirt.

Only Gordon could out stupid Gordon.

Portia (#87)

Want some pretty blunt scissors, so you can cut your pretty colored paper in the corner while the adults discuss boring adult stuff?

LOL! Perfect.

#84 snooze 9/21/2004 03:03PM PST

#68 smazoid 9/21/2004 02:49PM PST

option 3 "...pull their reporters from the Middle East..." is nonsense. There are plenty of journalists willing to risk their lives to tell the truth.

It's ultimate bullshit that a news agency plays nanny and doesn't allow journalists to tell the truth.

It's to our DEEP shame that people who've grown up with the freedom their ancestors died to give us throw away that freedom as if it was worth nothing as soon as they find it inconvienent!

Arab journalists pay with lives to fight for the right to honest journalism and freedom of the press, but from the safety of Britain, a news agency has given up on all of these ideals.

May the world expose these losers and may we all boycott such unworthy services!

Hey Gordon,

Al-Reuters’ "news" is "fake but accurate".

Also, how can we hope to reform the despotic regimes of the Middle East when we don't show the courage of our ideals? At all!!

We need to show them how to be free people, not how to be fucking sheep!

"I, for one, welcome our new 'militant' overlords..."

90 zulubaby

Hilarious. geeesh.

Gordon...you really don't have a freeway close to play on? Chase the cars, hubcaps...you know. Something. Anything.....

OT

McAuliffe: Will GOP Answer If They Know Whether Stone, Others Had Involvement With CBS Documents?

[Link: www.democrats.org...]

Now why would Reuters want to call their friends nasty names?

LOL! Love this policy... I love it so much, I whipped up a Movable Type plugin that automatically "CanWest's" your posts by replacing militant, activist, fighter, gunman etc. by the T-word. Check it out!

#87 Portia

You should have told us before.

LOL on your post!
And he is here in an attempt to influence us...

#92 & 94 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

In the PA all "journalists" work for Arafish. They are not going to get themselves killed for Al-Reuters, truth, or the American way. Western "journalists" in the PA also have to please the fish or die.

Under those circumstances all the "news" from the disputed territories are suspect. Al-Reuters may as well withdtraw.

P.S. M4d propz to al Reuters for admitting that pressure from the terrorists makes them go over-neutral in their reporting.

"Today, two persons with intentions to unnaturally terminate the lifesigns of random persons with a Judean beleif system with potentially explosive substances were stopped in their efforts when their lives were unnaturally terminated by government enlisted armed persons at an artificial road obstruction in the country often referred to as 'Israel'." I'll get less of a headache from reading "Two terrorist would-be homicide bombers shot at Israeli checkpoint."

Don't you think papers in Iran use emotive descriptions when they describe coalition troops? (Well, in the case of Lyndie's house of S&M, I'll aggree with them.)

Here is the text of Bush's speech to the UN.

Here is the only thing Reuters heard: Bush Calls on Israel to Impose Settlement Freeze

What media bias?

#101 smazoid 9/21/2004 03:25PM PST

Yes I know all that. I wasn't talking about the average Arab "reporter" when I mentioned the ones who've lost their lives fighting for freedom of the press. Oddly enough, those ones can't seem to get articles printed in the western press all that easily either - probably for the same reason Al-Reuters won't print the word "terrorist".

What I meant was that a real news agency would find reporters, western or Arab or whatever who were willing to risk their lives to tell the truth instead of relying on Arafat or Hamas operatives to fill their pages with propaganda. Humanity doesn't actually lack for idealistic and couragous people.

Another story about Reuters

One Down, One to Go
By Cliff Kincaid | September 21, 2004

[Link: www.aim.org...]

#102 Magnan:

"Today, two persons with intentions to unnaturally terminate the lifesigns of random persons with a Judean beleif system with potentially explosive substances were stopped in their efforts when their lives were unnaturally terminated by government enlisted armed persons at an artificial road obstruction in the country often referred to as 'Israel'."

No, no, no.
The copy should read:

"...were stopped when they were shot dead by armed soldiers of the Zionist entity."

You only have to soften the language when it's Muslims committing murder. (Official al-Reuters guidelines.)

Michael Savage just called for the nuking of all Muslims. I guess his career is now over.

#103 zulubaby,
What do you expect when someone named Arshad Mohammed is writing their copy?
The very last paragraph:

Without naming him, Bush revived his criticism of Arafat and urged others to follow the U.S. lead in shunning him, saying: "World leaders should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause." (Additional reporting by Wafa Amr in Ramallah and Jeffrey Heller in Jerusalem)

I guess the last paragraph was Heller's contribution....

What I'd really like to see/hear:

"Kerry, before I debate your treasonous butt, I want
to make sure you understand where I'll be coming from!
Your lies, under oath in front of our Congress was
responsibile for hundreds, or perhaps hundred of
thousands deaths, of Americans and other innocents
and is continuing today because of your present lies and
the lies of your democratic-unAmerican friends."

"So, I'll debate you kerry, but lie once, this close to me, and you're hamburger, or maybe steak 'tartar"

#104 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

Agreed.

That's what real reporters used to do and some still do.

#107 Manco
Link?
Sigh.

#86 Magnaminous Coward . . .

By controlling the language, you start controlling how people think. (I really have to read Orwell's "1984" soon.)

I recently read it, and it's amazingly up-to-date for what we are facing. Especially the parts about rewriting the news and therefore rewriting history.

CBS fits right into the world of 1984.

oops me bad

I shoud have added an OT in front....sorry

(And I even used the PIMF dude)

So does Reuters.

I'll have to dig for the link, but a few months ago, during a "Terrorist" attack in Gaza, a guy driving a CNN newsvan on the road had the presence of mind to swing his bulletproofed van around to block the street so that no other cars would pass and/or get shot at.

What I'm wondering is this:

Why is it that there always seems to be a newsvan around when there is a well-coordinated terror attack? Maybe because they get a tip that there will be interesting footage?

These "news" agencies are complicit, because they know exactly when and where these "terrorist" attacks are going to happen, and they do nothing to actually prevent them.

#111 Ann:

I heard him say it on the radio. There is no link.

If Kerry wins, the up-shot will be such a surge of terrorism that America will never again feel free to elect a Donk President for 50 years. IF that means 4 years of hell on earth, it's worth it.

#92 Joshua . . .

Arab journalists pay with lives to fight for the right to honest journalism and freedom of the press, but from the safety of Britain, a news agency has given up on all of these ideals.

When Iraq was first liberated, I remember the dangers Iraqi journalists faced--and probably still do--when they reported on various matters and were threated with their lives.

#110 smazoid 9/21/2004 03:39PM PST

But remember, Gordon thinks there's no need for anyone to show any courage (other than terrorists of course). Makes you wonder what outcome he's rooting for.

transient, I'm beginning to think that AP and Reuters only hire Arabs. As for Wafa Amr, read this.

Some of Reuters’s Palestinian stringers are honest and courageous. But, according to several ex-Reuters staffers, they feel the intimidating presence of Wafa Amr, Reuters’s “Senior Palestinian Correspondent.” Amr — who is a cousin of former Palestinian minister Nabil Amr, and whose father is said to be close to Arafat — had this title specially created for her (there is no “Senior Israeli Correspondent,” or the equivalent in any other Arab country) so that her close ties to the Palestinian Authority could be exploited.

Or just Google her name.

#119 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar:

I think Nodrog said let them fight it out and slaughter as many Iraqis as they want to as long as Americans aren't there. But that's a racist position. So Nodrog doesn't know WHAT to do.

Of course we all have to agree with Gordon! More than that, I think that we should bring those ter..oh, wait...individuals.. Crispy Creme Donuts and Coffee. After all, we don't want them to get mad now, do we? Oh, and ofcourse, we HAVE TO give them cable TV, swimming pool, and an internet access at Guantanamo. And maybe we could all make origami in the end of the day and hold hands.

/severe sarcasm off

I wonder if Gordon would be singing the same song if his head was laying on his back. What a sack.

Be nice to Gordon

He doesn't agree. So? He's not a raving frothing nutball guys. At worst he's playing devils advocate. Save your ammo for if he goes over the top - and this isn't it.

As far as Gordon believing Islam has contributed to the world:

I am not against Islam, anymore than I am against Christianity. Which means, that I am only positive towards either when they are in the possetion of sane, rational people, that fear G-d more than they fear the Pastor or Mullah or Rabbi. This has always been true.

However, if you want to go historical and start bitching about Islam, believe me, it isn't going to be hard to find lots of problems with whatever religion you happen to believe in. So chill out.

Next up, as far Gordon trying to stick up for Reuters.

Gordon, I agree that Reuters has the right to do that. But ideally they should have made it clear from day one that they are going to have to say things in a certain way.

Tragically, not everyone understands just how true is the adage of "don't believe everything you read in the paper". This isn't a matter of stupidity either. A lot of times I'll read something, I'll know it's pure BS. But because I read it a part of me refuses to disbelieve it. What can I say? It's human nature to assume that the other guy is honest and not a soul sucking lawyer/journalist.

:D

However, Mark Twain has always made it clear in his own career as a journalist that he would constantly make stuff up to sell the paper. In "roughing it" he claims that his first story involved a group of Pilgrims that got creatively massacred by some Indian tribe... all of which was written before the group moved out of town of course. Sound familiar?

So this is not exactly something new. The amazing thing is that Reuters actually admited it.

Keeping in mind as well, that the editors have investors to answer to, the reporters are frequently lazy guys who don't like getting shot at, and people have biases. So when someone says "All the news that's fit to print" they aren't necessarilly talking about the "truth".

So how do we deal with it? By having blogs like this one scrutinizing and criticising the press if it comes out with obvious BS, that's how. There's a limit to what can be done.

That all said, there is one more addition I'd like to make. What Reuters does, pushes the line a lot. But crossing the line ... that's when you fake memos, photoshop pictures, or claim expertise in an area you are totally unfamiliar with. That is not when you call terrorists, "militants". That's pushing, not crossing the line.

I expect reporters to, er.. be "creative" with their stories, otherwise I'd be bored. I expect them to even have out of body experiences with their stories aka Mister Clemens. But there is a difference between writing BS that is entertaining, and writing BS that gets people killed, demoralized, or threatens the security of the entire country.

There are really, ultimately, only three reasons why our troops were sent to Iraq to kick ass and take names. They are:

Reason #1: The North Tower
Reason #2: The South Tower
Reason #3: The Pentagon

The fourth flight that was downed only added the much needed encouragement that we could slaughter these @#$@#$@#.

THAT is my problem with the DNC and the press. I think I have a good grasp of why they are moving in the direction they are. Which is why, bluntly, we have to stand up and send more young men to Iraq to get shot, and to shoot/kill people.

Some people will say, "but ron, if you are so gung-ho, why don't you go?" My answer is also blunt "because I don't have the courage to be shot at or to devote my time to our country." OK? It doesn't get more blunt then that.

But at least I'll be able to say I didn't let anyone in my presence pull that disgusting shit treatment the soldiers got in 1971.

-ron

#120 zulubaby 9/21/2004 03:47PM PST

As dirty as we all suspected. Yep.

A "Boycott Reuters" movement would be really useful - these facts need to be more widely known.

Now, let's try another modest proposal, aka reductio ad absurdem. What if Israel, inspired by Reuters' policy, decided it would be a fine thing to beat the crap out of (or behead) all journalists reporting in an anti-Israel fashion? Gordon's rationalization suggests Israel should try it. Israel might get some better press at last.

Unfortunately, I don't believe it would work. In the case of Israel, I think Reuters et. al. would withdraw from the situation, and flame Israel from afar. Which would suggest the problem is not entirely one of protecting their reporters. It is also about a biased point of view. There are many news outlets who do not have reporters in these areas, and they are free to call the terrorists whatever they want--but they don't.

Another option the media have not even attempted, is to use whatever cowardly language they feel is appropriate to protect their reporters, but then to report openly and honestly that their report has been affected/ altered/ essentially censored by fears for reporter safety.

During the Iraq war, embedded reporters with US troops TOLD you when they couldn't tell you stuff. In decades past, reporters were open when their news was altered by Israeli censors. The flagrant and appalling dishonesty shown by Reuters, CNN, and others is that they do not admit their reports are affected by Arab/Muslim intimidation--or by the use of stringers.

If they want to use this expedient, it is not enough to say it once. Every time they alter a report because of intimidation, they should say so.

For too long the Arabs have been successful in using Western media as their own mouthpieces. This should not stand.

/rant

#120 zulubaby

Well, from where I stand, it looks like the U.N. hires roughly 95% arabs to do their work in Israel.

It makes it soooooo much easier to get terrorists into Jerusalem when yer driving a U.N. vehicle.

I'm just kidding, sort of.. my friends currently serving at checkpoints make sure to go thru every inch of U.N. vehicles and ambulances, for what should be obvious reasons. :-)

#123 ballantrae 9/21/2004 03:49PM PST

You are ignoring the importance of the press to a democratic society. We can't make sane policy if we are systematically misinformed. And there is not really a dearth of idealistic and couragious reporters, only a dearth of intelligently run news services willing to hire them. For more on this, please reread my posts 82 92 and 94.

I find your lack of appreciation for all of the important principles completely disgusting.

#125 transient 9/21/2004 03:52PM PST

re: A modest proposal

Yep, that's the logic of these wishy washy cowards. Every press report needs to include death threats - then we'll get good press just like the enemies of freedom.

er I meant to type "press release" not "press report".

Anyway you made me laugh.

My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity,” he said.

Hard to do both of those things at once. This was CNN's rationale for lying about the state of affairs in Iraq while Hussein was in power, and it didn't work for them, either.

#102 MagnaniomousCoward

"Today, two persons with intentions to unnaturally terminate the lifesigns..."

WRONG!

Today, two persons with alleged "intentions" to unnaturally terminate the lifesigns...

Right!

I'm just so sickened by the left all my life, that I can just sit and cry.

119 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

Gordon doesn't matter. However, what would be the harm if we have no reporting from Islamist enemy territory? We have no reporting from North Korea and are not worse for it.

#132 Manco_Dollars 9/21/2004 04:07PM PST

You want to cry? I considered myself a "progressive" before that word was changed to prefer the UN over actual liberty, truth and human rights and to prefer "a celebration of diversity" over the equality of humanity.

I'm still not a right winger which means that there is no place for me in American politics.

I'm still a lefty, so got plenty to cry over here.

#133 smazoid 9/21/2004 04:08PM PST

We can't win the war on terrorism and we can't help the middle east join civilization if we maintain the sort of isolation from the middle east that we have from north korea.

134 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

Hey, we were all Lefties (oops, Progressives) once.

You sound like a Neocon now.

Now that Reuters has admitted their bias, they should do one of two things. Pull out of any area in which their reporters may be at risk, or turn to reporting only those events which would not put their reporters at risk. i.e.,
Mohammed Mohammed today took his goats to the upper pasture, he was accompanied by his young sons, etc, etc. Otherwise they are no better than those they are afraid to speak of.

Some folks have speculated that nodrog is just an attention whore. I believe today was a perfect illustration of that. First the outrageous statement, then the rightous piling on, then, to garner sympathy for his next excursion a few seemingly rational statements with the attending 'poor me'. It has been a pattern of late.

#134 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar:

You can start by voting for Bush. Also register as a Republican.

Appeasement has never prevented violence, stopped a war, turned totalitarian governments into democracies, or provided any benefit whatsoever. Instead, it emboldens terrorists, toughs, totalitarian governments and assorted malevolence. No more Chamberlains!

Reuters used to be a highly respected news organization. Like CBS, it has lost its integrity and is unlikely to ever regain respect.

And I mean it as a compliment.

I heard on Neil Cavuto that we are selling Israel 200 bunker-buster bombs that will most likely be used to bomb Iranian nuke facilities! woohoo

#127 Joshua the Llama

I'd like to take this statement seriously

I find your lack of appreciation for all of the important principles completely disgusting.

but after reading this,

But you've really justified your role as LGF's bitch.

it's kind of hard. See, that's called "shutting down debate". The whole point of "discussion" is the use reasoned arguements.

Generally, explaining to someone that he is your bitch doesn't really cut it.

Here is your mistake:

It's to our DEEP shame that people who've grown up with the freedom their ancestors died to give us throw away that freedom as if it was worth nothing as soon as they find it inconvienent!

See, you've got a lot right, assuming when you say "freedom" you are thinking of "free speech". But your mistake is in assuming that the press is doing something new by being irresponsible. Washington himself was quoted by Richard Brookhiser in "Founding Father" (I think) as saying that the press is completely irresponsible.

During the Civil War the press happily gave away battle plans, troop movements, etc. There was a board of inquiry that was convened much against Lincolns will, which gave out all sorts of classified info, all happily scribbled by reporters into their papers.

Try to imagine the result if they would even think of doing that today.

Um, no, bad example, they definitely think about it. So forget that.

Anyway, get a grip man. The press is composed of @#$@#@#$. That's not news. Gordon is trying to see it objectively. Looking at the situation objectively won't kill you. You are still allowed to look at it objectively and to say that the press is composed of unethical bastards who should be shipped off to the icy reaches of Siberia.

-ron

#136 smazoid 9/21/2004 04:15PM PST

YEah my friends taunt me by calling me a neocon.

HOW THE FUCK did wanting to fight for liberty end up being labeled with the same damn label as Newt fucking Gingritch and as the Christian right before him?

So modern day American lefties are just liars who throw around epethets instead of arguing principles and policies! Assholes!

Part of my problem is that I actually grew up in Canada (as an American), so I expect more honesty, more debate and more decorum than has ever existed among us south of the boarder barbarians.

Sorry, but I'm no good at diplomacy.

Are there any LGFers from Chicago/Chicago area? I feel like I am having a nightmare and can't wake up. The left has officially left the planet.

"My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity"

Pansies! If they're too scared to call things as they see them, they're in the wrong business.

#142 ballantrae 9/21/2004 04:19PM PST

#127 Joshua the Llama

I'd like to take this statement seriously

I find your lack of appreciation for all of the important principles completely disgusting.

But you don't. How convinient, now you don't have to defend your view. Ok. I don't actually care if you respect me, because your own rant contained nothing that inspires any respect in me.

138 Manco_Dollars 9/21/2004 04:17PM PST

Well I've changed my party affiliation from Green to Democrat and I'm going to vote for Bush (my first Republican vote). Kerry's speeches on foriegn policy have offended me so deeply that I have to vote against him.

#146 Joshua the Zebra Scholar

relax man. I do respect you.

Take a five minute break, re-read what I wrote, and I'm sure you'll see I wasn't goofing on you. Here is an example of me goofing on someone:

(a few back and forth emails between me and a friend from Ireland - note how he changes my email address)

From: "jon"
Subject: LOSERS
To: america@sucks.com

Europe handed the USA their heaviest defeat in the Ryder Cup's 77-year history.

What about teaming up with South Africa to make it more of a match?

----------------------------------------

From: "ron"
Subject: Re: LOSERS
To: "jon"

strange that the address gets to me. Ah well. Go with the flow I say.

Regarding the loss, I think it's a great thing for
American golf players. Just like I think the humiliating loss to Puerto Rico was good for the basketball players. They really need that
desperately. [ I go on, but I'm cutting it short]

------------------------------------

From: "jon"
Subject: LOSERS
To: ron@whatever.com

we've won 4 out of the last 5 and the one you won was surrounded in controversy and apparent cheating

---------------------------------

from: "ron"
Subject: Re: LOSERS
To: "jon"

ME? What do I have to do with this?

Hey man, I don't like golf, I don't like sports, I
just try to look at things in a positive light.
Except when it comes to the Yankees humiliating the Red Sox, that's important.

-----------------------------

from: "jon"
Subject: Re: LOSERS
To: "ron"

you made it sound like the result was a one off, thats why I had to make the point that it has been total dominance for over 10 years

---------------------------------

from: "ron"
Subject: Re: LOSERS
To: "jon"

Oh, yeah, I forgot how much you love sports!

Nah Jon, if I made it sound like one off, that's cause I thought it was one off. I have no clue what goes on in sports, I just figured America was normally winning since we are superior to Europeans in pretty much everything else that counts. Except for golf. And ... uh .. soccer .. right? That's a game people in Ireland play yah? Oh yes, and beer. That's important. I guess you need it to cry in when the
realization that we pretty much OWN you sinks in.

hehe

:)

What does this have to do with you? Nothing really. I just like this exchange because I'm hoping someone will get a kick out of it.

:D

-ron

By the way ballantrae I see nothing wrong with "shutting down debate" with Gordon. Not everyone has ideas worth discussing and not everyone has enough character to be worth trying to convince.

Some thoughts on this.
It does not come as any surprise that Reuters skews the news. What is surprising is that the public is learning one of the reasons.

Perhaps newspapers should put a note on their Reuters reports that Reuters feels itself vulnerable to retribution from terrorists, and writes accordingly by their own admission.

Or else the news outlets should restore some of the honesty by calling a terrorist a terrorist. If Reuters feels sensitive about this remove the Reuters name and just say "from our news sources" so people would know that the news outlet is taking some responsibility for the reporting. Actually, it would be good to get a report that combines information from a few sources, or at least 2 sources. A newspaper here in the US could be more honest without worrying about the real problem of being murdered by terrorists.

EE I still say there is an answer. Boycott Reuters, denounce them loudly, and support responsible journalists.

"...and we can't help the middle east join civilization if we maintain the sort of isolation from the middle east that we have from north korea."

What makes anyone here believe that the middle east wants to join civilization?

ballantree:

"Gordon is trying to see it objectively."

That statement alone would be enough to strip you of any credibility--you might want to rethink that one!

#152 Crusader:

What makes anyone here believe that the middle east wants to join civilization?

I take the huge numbers that wish to emigrate to the West as an encouraging sign that, on the individual level at least, they desire freedom and prosperity.

#152 Crusader 9/21/2004 04:54PM PST

Given the same info as the rest of humanity, the majority will prefer peace, freedom and (relative) prosperity to jihad and fascism. Sure the power structures in the Middle East prefer to maintain their power and rely on artificially maintained ignorance, hatred and warfare to keep their power.

So it's our job to weaken those power structures and make sure that Middle Easterners have access to sane information.

We have to flip those societies just like we flipped the power structures in the American South to take the racists out of power and change the culture.

OT:
On CBS "as it happens" an interviewee is saying that Kerry came out against the liberation of Iraq more strongly now in order to try to regain "women voters in the wake of Beslan" WTF, did female swing voters really respond to Beslan by demanding surrender? Really? I find that hard to believe!

Sorry I meant CBC "as it happens" not CBS

CBC

#151 Joshua

Reuters is not the only one skewing the news. Every news agency is worried about having its reporters in the field murdered by terrorists.

I remember an incident where a foreign news service actually apologized that their man had covered something that the terrorists did not want covered, and promised that it wouldn't happen again.

I think that first of all the public needs to be educated about this problem, and the fact that the news agencies have to watch themselves so as not to offend the terrorists. If the public becomes savvy about this, they may be able to read between the lines and get a better understanding of what is actually happening.

Reuters is not going to sacrifice the lives of their journalists because of any economic pressure from readers.

But it would be very useful if the public got to know the threats that Reuters reporters feel subject to, their vulnerability to terrorists, and how the Reuters reports are skewed to please the terrorists. And this applies not only to Reuters, but to other reporters in the field.

This knowledge by the public could go a ways in neutralizing the bias of the reports.

The other thing that is an influence are the favors that terrorists bestow on reporters that they consider on their side. That's why you may find that photographers and reporters may be at the scene of some impending terrorist incident before it takes place. There is a mutually beneficial relation between the terrorists and the reporters friendly to them. Think of these reporters as embedded with the terrorists.

EE:

Your explanation merely serves as a public service announcement encouraging maintenance of the status quo.

"There is a mutually beneficial relation between the terrorists and the reporters friendly to them. Think of these reporters as embedded with the terrorists."

That makes them legitimate targets. GOOD.

This is nothing new for reuters. After 9/11 the two top reuters grownups said in a letter to the wsj that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". exemplary sentiment from some really fine people. make u sick?

#152 Crusader 9/21/2004 04:54PM PST

I remember an incident where a foreign news service actually apologized that their man had covered something that the terrorists did not want covered, and promised that it wouldn't happen again.

Well, we can't afford to care about what AFP prints :)

But seriously Reuters is the worst of the news agencies that gets print space in the English language press, and they long ago crossed a red line.

But as for expecting our public to read between the lines as if we lived in a dictatorship, I say FUCK THAT! We need to have MUCH higher standards. If reporters aren't willing to risk their lives for the truth, then they can fucking cover the Power Puff Girls, car shows and other safe beats... The world has plenty of tigers like Orianna Fallaci was in her day. Send them to middle east and keep the wee timorious beasties home, covering fashion.

Sorry, I copied the wrong header!!!
My last post responded to:
#158 EE 9/21/2004 05:13PM PST

NOT to Crusader! Once again sorry.

It is high time that the owner of these MSM started demanded the truth. The Asper family has shown a little bit of courage.

#159 Crusader
You have a point. Collaborating with the enemy should not be rewarded, and maybe some price should have to be paid for doing it.

If it is thought that a certain reporter has some advance knowledge of an impending terrorist incident, would it be right to arrest and interrogate that reporter?

If lives could be saved by doing this, should it be done?

Certainly the Euros would scream that it is unlawful. And anything done to save lives from terrorist savagery is viewed as unlawful by the Euros.

That is what they always tell Israel, for example. The Euros say that Israel has no lawful right to defend itself, whether by offing terrorists, or by building a fence to protect its children. So they always give Israel the choice: be lawfully dead, or unlawfully alive.

EE:

Yes, I agree with you about attaching consequences and I've very serious about it.

If someone has advance knowledge that a crime is going to take place and that it is likely that the crime itself is going to cost human lives, why do we continue to pretend that if one is a "reporter" that one is *NOT* an accomplice?

They clearly are an accomplice in the moral sense of the word, and that's frankly all I care about at this point.

165 Crusader 9/21/2004 05:38PM PST

By american law they're accomplice legally.

Anyway I've spent too long on this. Gotta go.

#165 Crusader
You make a good argument. Sounds right to me.

Well, the torrent of abuse at me has started again.

My grandmother has a saying which went "Sometimes when people say bad things about you that really hurt, it hurts because it's true.

She was a very wise woman. You should consider it.

Why do all the leftist news organizations even bother with reporters on the ground? It seems that they could get much better and unintimidated stories from reporters sitting at home in their pajamas Like Jason Blair, Peter Arnett, Dan Rather et al.

#167 Joshua
Then you agree with Crusader. If they have knowledge of an impending terrorist incident, they can be considered accomplices. And there should be some consequences.

Manco_Dollars (#107)

Michael Savage just called for the nuking of all Muslims. I guess his career is now over.

A guy called in, obviously distraught after watching the video of the beheading of Eugene Armstrong, and described, in detail, what he'd seen. Michael Savage said, "Death to the enemy, nuke them before they nuke us".

You're not a very attentive listener, are you?

#158 EE

I remember an incident where a foreign news service actually apologized that their man had covered something that the terrorists did not want covered, and promised that it wouldn't happen again.

EE: You are probably thinking of the Ramallah lynching, where Italian journalists/ TV video'ed the barbaric murder of two Israeli reservists who had taken a wrong turn into Ramallah; the journos later apologized to the PA for showing the material.

I mean, what were they thinking? Showing the unvarnished savagery of Mr. Arafat's minions like that.

In Honor: Never forget.
GRAPHIC PICTURE ALERT.

#154 cam --

I take the huge numbers that wish to emigrate to the West as an encouraging sign that, on the individual level at least, they desire freedom and prosperity.

I don't. Too many have made statements that they reject Western culture, too many continue to think/act in ways contrary to freedom, too many feed at the public trough (Muslims have the second-highest usage levels of public welfare, medicaid and Supplemental Security Income -- nearly 30%), too many contribute to funding/sheltering/aiding/abetting terrorists....

Islam's tenets are so diametrically opposed to America's principles, values and laws that subscribing to that philosophy constitutes prima facie evidence that person is a potential danger to this country and her citizens and should be barred from entry.

#143 Joshua

Methinks you were listening to the MSM through a Green filter during the 80's and 90's. Get to know Newt. He's a pretty deep brilliant thinker, actually. The Dems have been pretty good at that demonizing thing for quite a while, now.

There's a place for your thinking, today. It's the Republican party. It's actually been there all the time, but you wouldn't have known it if you believed how its enemies defined it.

OT: I just heard an interview with a journalist on Fresh Aire who says that the Islamists are killing all the educated people in Iraq and driving them out of the country - just like Pol Pot...

Why the fuck isn't this headline news?

By the way, would someone email charles on this? He ignores all of my emails. I must have critisized him once and gotten into his bozo bucket.

Never mind the spllng mstks

tbarney still every few years some new thing comes out of the republican party or out of a republican administration and gets labeled "neocon" even though it has no relation to the last thing that got labeled "neocon".

Our current "neocons" have nothing to do with Gingritch and I vaguely remember that the christian right were called neocons before Gingritch - and had nothing to do with him...

That's completely dishonest reporting. It's so shallow that I think it's just about dismissing things without even bothering to describe them. It's just an epithet.

#6 Gordon

STFU

The Case of Reuters (article originally appeared in the National Review)

by Tom Gross

Many people still think of Reuters as the Rolls-Royce of news agencies. Just as the House of Morgan was once synonymous with good banking, Reuters has long been synonymous with good news-gathering. In 1940, there was even a Hollywood film about Paul Julius Reuter, the German-Jewish immigrant to London who as early as 1851 began transmitting stock-market quotes between London and Paris via the new Calais-Dover cable. (Two years earlier he had ingeniously used pigeons to fly stock prices between Aachen and Brussels.)

His agency quickly established a reputation in Europe for being the first to report scoops from abroad, such as news of Abraham Lincoln's assassination. Today, almost every major news outlet in the world subscribes. Operating in 200 cities in 94 countries, Reuters produces text in 19 languages, as well as photos and television footage from around the world.

Though it may report in a largely neutral way on many issues, Reuters's coverage of the Middle East is deeply flawed. It is symptomatic, for instance, that Reuters's global head of news, Stephen Jukes, banned the use of the word "terrorist" to describe the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks. Even so, such is the aura still surrounding Reuters that news editors from Los Angeles to Auckland automatically assume that Reuters is fair and objective. Reuters and Associated Press copy is simply inserted into many correspondents' reports -- even in papers such as The New York Times and Washington Post -- without, it often seems, so much as a second thought given to its accuracy.

For remainder of article:

[Link: www.aish.com...]

#173 transient
Yes, that was the story.
Thanks for your help on that.

As EE said, it's not just Reuters. A couple of months ago there was a "weird" incident where James Bennet, the chief NYT reporter in Israel, was kidnapped by, uh, "militants" for a few hours and then let go. Of course the reporting of this incident (by the NYT and the rest of the MSM) was, "Gee, how bizarre, why would they do a thing like that?". But obviously they were sending the same message they are sending Reuters.

So it's not just a matter of "bias", with sappy journalists skewing their coverage because of misplaced sympathy for the Palestinians (or in some cases outright anti-semitism). It's a scandalous betrayal of journalistic principles, letting those you are covering dictate the coverage for the sake of a "scoop".

This is at least as outrageous as Rathergat, and should be as widely publicized as that little fake memo so people will learn that MSM coverage of the Mideast is mostly horseshit, deliberately and knowingly biased against Israel.

Let's not forget al-Reuters also uses the phrase 'toy gun' whenever an Arab kid is pictured with a weapon. Whether the gun is real or not is moot point to them.

#182 herschel
You are right.
It is an enormous scandal that the public should know about.
Reporting is gravely affected by the barrels of the terrorists' guns, and their knives, and it is not limited to Reuters.

Until the public knows about it, and can discuss it, and understands the implications and can address this problem, the terrorists have made a major accomplishment with this intimidation of reporters.

Getting the word out about this is part of the war on terror. And I am thankful that Charles has drawn attention to this.

#172 Zulubaby: Oh, I feel MUCH better now, knowing what Michael Savage REALLY said...

Which of the two statements do you agree with?

The Asper family, that controls CanWest, are strong Zionists. As noted above, family founder Israel Asper passed away last year, but his sons, who now run the company, are carrying on in their fathers footsteps.

I thank God that they are showing more spine in this matter than the MSM in the rest of North America.

I urge Canadian LGFers to support CanWest by subscribing to a CanWest publication, such as the National Post.

Do NOT feed the trolls.