Tuesday, September 9, 2003
HonestReporting follows up on a previous story about two Florida newspapers and their use of the word "terrorist."
As part of the new report, HonestReporting highlights the Boston Globe's answer to the issue.
EDITORS CONSIDER THE "T-WORD":
“To label any group in the Middle East as terrorist is to take sides, or at least appear to, and that is not acceptable... One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter; it's not for journalists to judge.”
This sounds almost as radical as the policy set by Steven Jukes, Reuters' global head of news:
"We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist... To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."
Well, at least Reuters is consistent. The Boston Globe seems to have a vaguely defined double standard. Al Qaeda, Chinlund writes, “has proven itself an allowable exception.”
So in addition to learning that the Globe's position is base hypocrisy, as their definition seems to boil down to, "A terrorist is anyone who might attack me. A militant is anyone who attacks THOSE people over THERE..." We get the stock "One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter..." answer.
Which begs the question: What kind of people edit the Boston Globe?
Well now we know.
Update: Israpundit points to a Best of the Web comment on the Globe's position.
