Reuters Avoids Branding Acts As ‘Terrorism’

by Brent Baker

Reasoning that “one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter,” Reuters decided to ban the use of the term “terrorist” or “terrorism” to describe those who did whatever they did on September 11, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz disclosed Monday in uncovering an internal Reuters memo.

A Reuters story after the events of unknown origin gave life to inanimate objects as a reporter asserted “two hijacked planes attacked the twin towers.” Generally, the Britain-based wire service has applied the word “attacks” to describe what occurred.

Back in 1995, however, Reuters had no such reluctance to describe the Oklahoma City bombing as a terrorist act.

In a discussion Monday night a Fox News Channel panel didn't think much of the newly-adopted values-neutral approach favored by Reuters. The Reuters policy, NPR's Mara Liasson observed, “implies that there are somehow two sides to this, that in every story you write you should have someone who's in favor of the attack on the World Trade Center interviewed as well as somebody who decries it. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense.”

An excerpt from Howard Kurtz's September 24 “Media Notes” column in the Washington Post which included an item about the Reuters policy:

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.”

To read the entirety of Kurtz's “Media Notes” column, go here.

A quick scan of past Reuters stories posted by Yahoo News revealed how Reuters is getting around the word “terrorist” in all types of stories by using the terms “attack” or “strike” without any “terrorist” modifier. Here are three dispatches found at the site:

— A September 13 story about the World Trade Center rescue effort. Under the headline, “Rescuers Battle to Find Survivors in New York Ruins,” Reuters reporter Ellen Wulfhorst began her New

York City-datelined story:

Rescuers battled into the night on Thursday in a tireless effort to find survivors in the grim remains of the World Trade Center after a day of dimming hopes that anyone was still alive in the mountains of rubble.

The list of those missing since two hijacked planes attacked the twin towers numbered 4,763 people, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said….”

— A September 13 story from the Washington bureau. “Bush Vows to 'Whip Terrorism;' Cheney Evacuated,” read the headline over the piece by reporter Arshad Mohammed, which started:

“With tears in his eyes and a trembling voice, President Bush vowed on Thursday to wage a relentless campaign to 'whip

terrorism' after this week's attacks in New York and Washington.

“With the nation's capital on hair-trigger alert for more possible strikes, the White House said Vice President Dick Cheney was taken to the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland as a 'precautionary measure' while the security perimeter was expanded around the executive mansion….”

— A September 19 report from New York City about the economic impact of whatever occurred. “U.S. Job Cuts Mount in Wake of Air Attacks,” announced the headline over the story which Nichola Groom opened:

“Corporate America's job cuts toll mounted on Wednesday after Boeing Co.'s shock announcement of up to 30,000 layoffs was followed by similar plans by major U.S. airlines trying to cope

with the growing fallout from last week's attacks on New York and

Washington.

“The U.S. aviation industry, already suffering from a slowdown in air travel before the devastating attacks on Sept. 11, have announced as many as 100,000 job cuts since then, sending a tremor through the U.S. economy.

“Late Tuesday, Boeing said it could lay off up to 30,000 workers by the end of 2002 due an expected slump in orders following the attacks, a trend that is likely to spread as the U.S. economy comes closer to recession….”

Just a bunch of random “attacks.”

To see for yourself how Reuters avoids any version of the word “terrorist,” go to Yahoo's page with top stories from Reuters: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ts/nm/?u.

(This update courtesy of the Media Research Center.)