Neutralizing Terrorism

Wednesday's Example of Media Bias   —   Posted on April 13, 2011

Jump to...

Print

Directions

-Read the excerpt below from the "Reuters Reverts: Neutralizing Terrorism" post by Ricki Hollander at CAMERA.org. (original post date 3/23/11).
-Read "Types of Media Bias" in the right column. Then answer the questions.

Reuters in a post-9/11 world was infamous for defiantly contending:

“We all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, and Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word ‘terrorist.”

CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) pointed out that beyond their defense of terrorists in general, Reuters essentially justified brutal Palestinian terrorism by redefining and distorting it into an “uprising for independence.” At the time, CAMERA staff and letter-writers convinced Reuters to use more accurate and honest language, and for awhile they did.

Now, with Palestinian terrorism against Israel on the rise, Reuters is reverting to its old ways. An article about the latest attack against civilians at a busy bus stop in the center of Jerusalem – one that was celebrated by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad – included the following description:

Police said it was a “terrorist attack” — Israel’s term for a Palestinian strike.

But this is not, as Reuters suggests, a matter of Israel imputing evil motives to Palestinians by labelling a legitimate military action as a “terrorist attack.” The dictionary and popular use of the word “terrorism” [defines it as] “the use of violence and threats (against civilians) to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.” The bombing of such a civilian target far from any military area, which resulted in the death of a British woman and in the wounding of 39 civilians, cannot be considered anything other than a “terrorist attack” by any objective observer. 

Given the death of a British national, it is puzzling that British media outlets sanitize the attack by covering up its terrorist nature. [Britain’s] Sky News, for example, similarly wrote:

Police said the incident was a terrorist attack.

Readers should not allow Reuters and others to sanitize terrorism with language that attributes it as a claim by the victim. In a world where terrorism has become disturbingly prevalent, there is no room for mitigation of terrorists’ actions. News consumers should insist upon the proper labelling of terrorism as such.

Read the original post at camera.org.

NOTE: A news agency is an organization of journalists established to supply news reports to news organizations: newspapers, magazines, and radio and television broadcasters. Such an agency may also be referred to as a wire service, newswire or news service.  The major news agencies generally prepare hard news stories and feature articles that can be used by other news organizations with little or no modification, and then sell them to other news organizations. They provide these articles in bulk electronically. Corporations, individuals, analysts and intelligence agencies may also subscribe.
[The three main international wire services are:  Associated Press (AP), Agence France Pres (AFP) and Reuters.]

Questions

1.  What types of bias does Reuters display?

2.  Why do you think Reuters purposely avoids calling a terrorist attack a terrorist attack?


Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the answers.
























Answer(s)

1.  By refusing to identify terrorists and terrorist attacks as such, Reuters displays bias by spin, and bias by labeling – this example is a reverse labeling (by refusing to correctly identify).

2.  Opinion question. Answers vary.