Hey, Reuters! What about the hand grenade?

The BBQ Pit
41

What does Israel have to do with what I posted? Terrorism is hardly just directed against the Israelis. Plus, I was referring to one specific event.

If in fact Reuters refuses to call anyone at all a “terrorist” or “suspected terrorist”, in connection with any event, then Reuters is taking political correctness to its absurd extreme. And if so, then they have shown they are morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Hey Dead Badger - my post referred specifically to the 9/11 hijackers. I would love to see how you will prove that the persons who are accused of carrying out these atrocities are innocent.

Oh, really? That’s what I said? In all cases? You want to prove that’s what I said, sunshine? Do you need someone to explain to you that I was referring to one event, and … oh, never mind. You won’t get it.

My point is that newspapers and wire services print items all the time as the truth on the basis of a lot less evidence. Go to Snopes and read all of the (false) Urban Legends that get reported as the truth by papers. They can print that the Klingerman virus exists and is a danger to us all, with no actual proof and without checking into it, but no, they can’t assume that people who drive planes into buildings are terrorists…that would somehow violate their civil rights.

It is pretty clear who and what was responsible for the deaths in NYC. I’m sorry if that offends those who want to pretend like every human being is a beautiful snowflake. Or worse, the people (often self-identified as ‘liberals’) who claim that since no one can ever be ‘proven’ guilty, this is therefore one reason that we should not have a death penalty.

I agree. The difference is that everything involves a conclusion of some sort. It’s where the line is drawn involving the conclusions that AP has lost their grip.

Let’s take a simple example - if a news agency was truly supposed to only report on what happened, then why not report that “terrorists drove a plane into a building”? Is that or is that not what happened? What is the definition of a terrorist, if not that? Were planes flown into buildings? Or, was it a simultaneous malfunction on both planes?

OK, now let’s take another example - when reporting on the moon landings, does AP preface their reporting with “NASA alleges that when they reputedly landed on the moon…” I mean, really - what “proof” does the AP have that anything happened? Doesn’t Dan Crevice in Asshole, Alabama, have a website up that says it’s all a big Konspiracy? Shouldn’t the AP check out his story?

The answer is, of fucking course not. You have to make some reasonable assumptions, based on overwhelming evidence. And I differ with the line that has been drawn in this case.

I’m not trying to be dense. I’m trying to point out that in some cases, with some events, it’s pretty fucking obvious what’s going on. And to deny the truth standing there before you either means you are either being willfully ignorant or you have a political axe to grind. Or you’re just tossing off words onto a message board screen, trolling for a flame.

And in case it’s still unclear - my post referred specifically to one event. I personally don’t know enough from the news to say anything one way or another about the Israel issue. I don’t know how many times I will have to say this before people pick up on it, so maybe I’ll put it into my sig.

42

Band name!

43

Entsilicon, your post mystifies me. Reuters didn’t contradict the Israeli military, so there’s no need to believe one or the other. Note that Reuters didn’t even mention the allegation that this man had a hand grenade.

Don’t you think it was embarassing to Reuters that one of their reporters has been accused of terrorism? Maybe that’s why they omitted these details.

44

:stuck_out_tongue:

And happy post 1000! :slight_smile:

45

Thank you.

46

Morally and intellectually bankrupt? Because they don’t use a word you want them to use? “Terrorist” is a pretty emotionally charged word, and it strongly implies a motive. A newspaper, IMO, has no business reporting a motive as fact, as there is no possible way to prove a motive. Journalists should only report as fact things that are verifiable as facts.

Fine, but the AP rule isn’t “always say alleged until they’ve been convicted, unless they blow up the World Trade Center.” Despite the fact that it was obvious this was the deliberate result of a terrorist hijacking, this rule still applies, and AP reporters followed it. If nothing else, following the rules in obvious cases is good practice for following them in the more ambiguous ones.

Yes, and if more news agencies follow AP’s lead, this sort of thing wouldn’t happen nearly as often. At any rate, I think it has less to do with protecting the terrorist’s civil rights, and more to do with protecting themselves from liability. You say someone is an “alleged” criminal so that, if they are later proven not to be a criminal, they can’t sue you. Not that anyone involved in the WTC attacks is likely to be bringing around a libel suit anytime soon, but it’s still a smart practice.

I was going to point out that the unusually large number of straw men in that paragraph only weakens your argument in this debate on the death penalty, but since we’re not debating the death penalty, I’ll just let it slide.

A news agency should report what is observationally true. “Two planes crashed into the World Trade Center.” Everything else should be attributed. “The FAA says that both planes had been hijacked.” “The FBI says the hijackers were terrorists.” A newspaper should present as fact only things that were directly observed by whoever is writing the story. Hence, “alleged.” Accused. “People say these guys are terrorists.” As is proper, it does not take a stand on the veracity of the accusation one way or the other.

As for the moon landing, I imagine most newspapers would report it as something like, “NASA today announced that they have succesfully landed on the moon, and released footage of John Glenn walking on it’s surface.”

Like I said, it doesn’t matter how obvious it is, you only report what you’ve seen first hand. This doesn’t even remotely equate to “denying the truth.” In fact, it is precisely the opposite: it is reporting only what is verifiably true, and leaves the readers to draw their own conclusions. If what’s going on is so patently obvious, you shouldn’t need the newspaper to point it out for you. I don’t need Reuters to tell me Osama bin Laden is a terrorist, I can look at his actions and figure that out for myself.

I’m not sure exactly who you’re accusing of trolling for a flame. I sure as hell hope it isn’t me. I thought we were talking about the Associated Press, but I don’t think they’re registered here.

Not for nothing, but if you’re going to come into a thread where people have a lot of strongly held opinions, and start asserting your own strongly held opinion, people are naturally going to assume that your opinion somehow relates to the topic at hand, which <checks OP> is wether or not Reuteurs was derelict in not reporting a third-hand charge that one of its reporters was armed with a hand grenade. Jesus, how the hell did we end up here?

47

I want them to use the appropriate word, without dancing around the subject, especially when it is clearly evident that terrorists are responsible. There are an awful lot of emotionally charged words that AP and Reuters have no trouble whatsoever using - “militia”, “separatist”, “supremecist”, “fundamentalist (Christian, Moslem, whatever)” - all of these implying a motive. I want journalists to be honest and use the right word for a situation. So these words should be banned as well? Should any and all words implying a motive be banned? What else could imply a motive - “conservative”? “Liberal”? “Socialist”? “Nader supporter”? :stuck_out_tongue:

Then it’s a good thing we’re not debating it so we won’t go making little references to how we’re not going to debate it because the other person has an “unusually large number of straw men”. I mean, that wouldn’t be a very honorable way to discuss something, would it?

I don’t know why one would bring this up, because it seems that by extention, perhaps we shouldn’t discuss terrorists unless they are registered here as well. Although after some of the vile shit posted here last September and October…

My post had a clear topic, and was in response to a comment made by Sparc (though not against him). This was unambiguous. And <checks Board over the last 3.0 years I’ve been reading it> I’d hazard that the number of threads that strictly adhere and limit themselves to discussing only the OP are somewhat in the minority over that time. So don’t bust my chops over that; there’s no justification to do so. For better or for worse, threads evolve, and have side-paths and distractions.

Besides, I could start talking about the World Cup. Or how glad I am that Blair didn’t do the “kicking the ball around with the boys” publicity stunt that was originally planned. Or about the Irish mess…

Now that’s something to bust my chops over.

48

december - can’t you understand the difference between a known arrest and an alleged charge, or are you being deliberately obtuse? You don’t need an official statement to know that someone has been arrested. You can witness it for yourself. You do need an official statement to know and report why someone has been charged.

And as others - and you yourself - have pointed out, it is possible to be arrested but not be formally charges - as is the clear case STATED BY YOU in the OP.

But I give up. I throw my hands up and admit that you, december are clearly, obviously and unequivocally right. Reuters is clearly a biased, nazi, anti-semitic news organisation. Why? Because it was started by a European - AND A GERMAN AT THAT!!!.

There? Feel better now? Does it feel good to have others corroborate your huge personal prejudice and misinformed paranoia?

:rolleyes:

49

Strictly speaking, I think most of them should be avoided unless attributed to someone else. “Police say so-and-so is a white supremacist,” “Bob Smith, a self-described conservative socialist…” I want a newssource to tell me what a person does, or tell me what a person says, just don’t tell me what a person thinks, because they don’t have any better idea about that than I do, and I can read the facts and draw my own conclusions.

Of course, I’m arguing from the abstract here. As a reader, I rarely notice this sort of thing unless it’s particularly egregious. Still, I appreciate the principle.

Exactly. It’s a good thing neither of us said anything about it.

**

Sorry, I’ll try to clarify what I meant. When you said, “…you are either being willfully ignorant or you have a political axe to grind,” I thought you were talking about either the AP or news agencies in general. Then you said that line about “trolling for flames on a message board,” which sounded like you were accusing someone in this thread of trolling. Since I was the last poster you had directly addressed, I was worried you were talking about me. If I’m coming across as trolling, I have to seriously reconsider my posting style.

**

I wasn’t trying to bust your chops, I was just making an observation. You said that this happens so often you were thinking of changing your sig. Since you seemed to be taking this kind of personally, I was just pointing out why this might be a common misunderstanding, and you might want to cut people who make it a little more slack. 'Course, no skin off my back if you don’t. Watching you tear someone a new asshole is always entertaining, if nothing else. And, for the record, I have no problem with hijacking threads (hence my last two posts). I consider it a form of recycling. Why let a perfectly good thread go to waste on yet another rant by december about how wicked and amoral and <shudder> liberal the media is.

Oh, God, no please. Not soccer. I concede to all your points, just don’t talk about soccer. :wink:

50

See what Istara said? Well I’m going to say it again. Someone being arrested by the Israeli authorities is a pretty easy thing to check - hopefully as easy as calling around police/military stations and asking the question (please tell me they haven’t started just disappearing the people they impound?)

But, as he hasn’t been charged, it might be an awful lot harder to verify the accusations made against him - as none have been made. So the accurate report of events would normally be “person x arrested, remains uncharged”. Which is what reuters did.

Now I’ve been doing a bit of digging, to see what’s happened to this guy since. Two things you haven’t commented on:

  1. The reuters report is dated three days prior to the Ha’aretz article. It is hardly inconcievable that the grenade allegation came about after Reuters filed their story, is it?

  2. That means the guy has been incarcerated for a week, yet no charge has been made against him (please correct me if you can find otherwise, I’ve checked against Reuters, CNN, Ha’aretz and a few other sources). Do you find it at all surprising that when such a supposedly clear cut case exists, they haven’t pressed charges within 7 days?

51

A few days after September 11, and I’m going by memory here, the govenment released a list of the “alleged” highjackers. Thank God we don’t go by the journalistic standards you seem to adhere to, Anthracite, because we’d have a little problem called “libel.” One of these alleged highjackers was a man by the last of Bukhara. He apparently attended a flight school in Florida. He was of the Muslim persuation. Well, it’s certainly “obvious” that he was one of the highjackers, no?

Well, unfortunately, he was found a few days later, alive, in Minnesota, I believe. He was later cleared of any involvement in the highjacking. Whoops. That’s one reason we use the word “alleged” and it’s called multi-million dollar lawsuits. Also, “innocent until proven guilty,” remember? You can be caught on videotape in front of twenty witnesses robbing a bank, but legally you are still a “suspect.” Yeah, it’s obvious you’ve done it, but this is supposed to be the cornerstone of our legal system. And goddammit, I don’t fucking care if it’s terrorists or my brother, but they’re still “suspects” (legally) until the trial is over.

This is not to say that I may not have my own opinions on the matter, but I maintain we should keep this lovely legal tradition.

As for the OP at hand, it is absolutely inexcusable that a journalist should be carrying a weapon. If the facts are as such, then Reuters should be firing its idiotic photographer for carrying a hand granade. Come-the-fuck on. It is generally regarded as a BIG “no-no” to carry weapons when on assignment for a news publication or wire. Not to say it hasn’t happened, but ethically (and practically in many cases) it’s considered flat-out wrong.

52

Thank God. You’re doing so well with your God-given talent for it that I’d hate to see what happens when you put a little effort into it.

To address one of your more minor points:

Neil Armstrong landed on the moon at xxxx hours, say NASA officials.

The first plane was followed shortly by a second plane say eyewitnesses to the event.

News reporters use phrases such as the ones I have italicized here to differentiate between fact and second-hand information. I doubt that you would find a contemporary well-written article that states “Neil Armstrong landed on the moon.”

To address your main point:

As has been stated numerous times already, it is essential that good news reporting remain impartial, regardless of the emotional weight of the situation. That’s what makes it good reporting. If a reporter wants to call them “terrorists,” he can do it in an op/ed piece. However, to do so in a news article suggests good guys and bad guys, and that kind of value judgement has no place in impartial news reporting.

Avoiding the word “terrorist” is not about a political agenda; it is about having the integrity to insist on not having one.

53

OK anthracite, I see were you’re coming from. This is per se not incorrect and I for one believe that the principle you’re upholding here is fair in itself. There is a slight flaw in your argument though. Terrorist is not just an emotionally charged word. In difference to all the other ones that you note it is subjective and arbitrary. Although there are clear cases like for instance the suicide hijackers who blew up the WTC, there are many more cases were it is not so clear. While I find white supremacist a vile thing to be, I think that a white supremacist him/herself might quite readily accept the epithet. Terrorist on the other hand is victim centric and transcends badly into general consensus, while the ETA are undoubtedly terrorists in the sense of the word, they themselves call it separatism. Think of when NATO bombed Yugoslavia – the Serbians called it terrorism, should Reuters have written; ‘In the latest terrorist attacks upon Belgrade NATO planes killed 15 innocent civilians in yet another night of relentless bombing’. You’ll call me absurd for saying that, but at the time that’s what Yugoslavian media was pretty much writing. Milosevic still repeats it like a mantra, december style in The Hague…

My point? Well although I agree with your principle to call a monster a monster, I understand that due to the ambiguity of the word AP and Reuters avoid the quandary of having to chose when it is OK to use the epithet in question by avoiding it all together, granted that like many hard held principles you’ll have times like September 2001 when taking such a stand looks little less than absurdly ridiculous.

Now we’re not independent news services so as far as I am concerned anyone that feels up to defending his or her view can call any given other terrorist, holding us accountable for that opinion is easy, we’re dependent individuals.

Why is it that this post conjures up the vision of an elderly gentleman in New Jersey with both his fingers in his ears, his eyes clamped shut, relentlessly repeating “I don’t care what you say! Reuters are terrorists, terrorists, terrorists and so is the EU. There all terrorists, terrorists I say, I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you! I can’t her you!”… at your age I’d expect some tiny little more nuance in your capacity to debate Mr. december. Argumentum ad nauseam is one of the most infantile forms of rhetoric I can imagine. Now answer us will you!

Sparc

54

Well done, Sparc. By (figuratively) standing on the table and shouting insults, you have avoided the necessity of responding to two points above. Here they are again:

– There was no disagreement between Reuters and Israel’s military

– This event has been embarassing to Reuters.

I invite you to concede truth of these statements.

55

As ever, December, your lack of understanding is rivalled only by your hypocrisy. For you to accuse another of avoiding responding to facts is almost breathtaking in it’s sheer pot/kettle stance.

Personally, I wouldn’t view either of your statements as accurate or even vaguely truthful, but instead as as a particularly biased and myopic interpretation of the reported events.

I also invite you, once more, to comment on two points

  1. The reuters report is dated three days prior to the Ha’aretz article. It is hardly inconcievable that the grenade allegation came about after Reuters filed their story, is it?

  2. That means the guy has been incarcerated for a week, yet no charge has been made against him (please correct me if you can find otherwise, I’ve checked against Reuters, CNN, Ha’aretz and a few other sources). Do you find it at all surprising that when such a supposedly clear cut case exists, they haven’t pressed charges within 7 days?

I await your unique insight to these questions with baited breath.

56

***It is hardly inconceivable that…*Gary, just about anything could follow those words. That’s not even an unspupported allegation. wring, I need your help!

No.

57

December Gary is suggesting that it’s within reason that the information about the grenade wasn’t necessarily available to Reutters at the time when they posted the article to which you linked.

Time line: Reporter arrested.
Ruetters report
three days later another source specifies the grenade.

Therefore, unless you have other supporting documentation that Ruetters knew about the grenade at the time of the article, you cannot hold them accountable for not reporting it.

See, even if the reporter had a grenade, at the time of the news report that you linked - Ruetters says that all it knew was that the reporter had been arrested - no charges known etc. The fact that another source claims additional information afterwards doesn’t prove that Ruetters is lying, withholding information etc (which was, IIRC, the basis for this rant).

Did that help?

58

Well, that was asininely gratuitous. Congrats.

59

Miller, thank you for taking the time to explain further. I see the points that you were making, and I agree that some of them are pretty good ones. I need to modify my way of looking at this, perhaps, because I think I don’t have the best way of looking at it.

Really?

60

Calm down, boys and girls.

[hijack]
Is that a hand grenade in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?
[/hijack]
Back to your regularly scheduled pot shots.