[iwar] [fc:To.Reuters,.there.are.no.terrorists.]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-09-24 12:17:58


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2303-1001359165-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31392 invoked by uid 510); 24 Sep 2001 19:20:36 -0000
Received: from n12.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.62) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 24 Sep 2001 19:20:36 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2303-1001359165-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.1.224] by n12.onelist.org with NNFMP; 24 Sep 2001 19:20:14 -0000
X-Sender: fc@big.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 24 Sep 2001 19:19:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 8707 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2001 19:17:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 24 Sep 2001 19:17:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Sep 2001 19:17:59 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id MAA06008 for iwar@onelist.com; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:17:58 -0700
Message-Id: <200109241917.MAA06008@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:To.Reuters,.there.are.no.terrorists.]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

(From a WashPost Article)
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14272-2001Sep23.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14272-2001Sep23.html>

To Reuters, there are no terrorists.

As of last week, suicide attacks that deliberately kill thousands of
innocent civilians cannot even be described as acts of terror. 

Stephen Jukes, the wire service's global head of news, explained his
reasoning in an internal memo: "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."

Except for the little detail that a terrorist assault is what it was. 
So why the value-neutral approach?

"We're trying to treat everyone on a level playing field, however tragic
it's been and however awful and cataclysmic for the American people and
people around the world," Jukes says in an interview. 

Besides, he says, "we don't want to jeopardize the safety of our staff. 
Our people are on the front lines, in Gaza, the West Bank and
Afghanistan.  The minute we seem to be siding with one side or another,
they're in danger."

Not everyone at the London-based news agency, which employs 2,500
journalists, is happy about the policy.  Jukes acknowledged there had
been "an emotional debate" with news editors around the world. 

After the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and again after the attacks on the
World Trade Center and Pentagon, Reuters allowed the events to be
described as acts of terror.  But as of last week, even that terminology
is banned because "we felt that ultimately we weren't being logically
consistent," Jukes says.  References to terrorism are allowed only when
quoting someone. 

"We're there to tell the story," Jukes insists.  "We're not there to
evaluate the moral case." Mystery Man

Television news, for the moment, can't get enough of Osama bin Laden,
the man wanted "dead or alive" by President Bush. 

To put it mildly, that was not always the case. 

Until the Sept.  11 attacks, the network evening newscasts had devoted a
grand total of 58 minutes this year to the shadowy terrorist.  According
to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, the coverage included 27 1/2
minutes on bin Laden and the U.S.  embassy bombings, 17 minutes on
threats to American interests in the Middle East, and 7 1/2 minutes on
the bombing of the USS Cole.  CBS provided slightly more coverage and
ABC the least. 

But since mid-May, these same newscasts carried two hours and 59 minutes
on the Chandra Levy story.  "NBC Nightly News," with nearly an hour and
a half of coverage, did more Gary Condit-related pieces than the other
two newscasts combined. 

Also racing past bin Laden were all those scary shark stories, clocking
in at an hour and a half. 

Says Robert Lichter, the center's director: "The Chandra/Condit story
showed us how low TV news can sink.  This story shows us that it can
still rise to the occasion."

In an era in which news organizations were closing foreign bureaus, bin
Laden was a tough sell for executives convinced that Americans had
little appetite for news from abroad.  Journalist Nina Burleigh, writing
on TomPaine.com, says that when she visited Baghdad in 1998, "there
wasn't much of a market for a story in the U.S.  about bin Laden's
popular allure on Arab streets.  No matter that he had been the FBI's
most wanted man for several years." Her editors "were rarely interested
in stories about Arabs that didn't involve an immediate crisis."
Headlines That Seem Dated

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XrFcOC/m5_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:49 PDT